THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 
 OH1CAGO STAR 
 
 BINDERY 
 
 224 S. Syring St., L. A, 
 
 Tel. MUtual 4434
 
 
 LAW LIBRARY 
 
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 
 EAILWAY ACCIDENT LAW. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS 
 
 INJURIES TO THE PEBSON. 
 
 BT 
 
 CHRISTOPHER STUART PATTERSON, 
 
 hi 
 
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAE. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO., 
 
 535 Chestnut Street. 
 1886.
 
 Copyright, 1886, 
 
 BY 
 
 Christopher Stuart Patterson. 
 
 T 
 P£7?4r
 
 5 
 
 
 MY FRIEND, AND MY PRECEPTOR 
 
 IN THE LAW, 
 
 THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM A. PORTER, 
 
 I GRATEFULLY DEDICATE THIS BOOK. 
 
 I leave these -words of dedication, as they were written when the prepara- 
 tion of this work was begun, although he, whose name honours thu 
 page, has, since then, in the fullness of years, in the maturity of his 
 powers, and to the sorrow of all who knew him, passed away from earth. 
 
 CHRISTOPHER STUART PATTERSON. 
 
 (3) 
 
 735709
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 My object in writing tins book has been that of 
 providing in a compact form a treatise, which should 
 be of practical use to judges and to counsel in the trial 
 of actions against railways for injuries to the person, 
 not only by furnishing references to the Leading, and 
 to the more recent, cases, but also by stating clearly 
 the general principles, whose application must deter- 
 mine cases for which exact precedents are not to be 
 found. 
 
 I am as conscious, as any of my readers can be, of 
 the many imperfections of my work, but I submit it 
 to the indulgent judgment of my professional brethren 
 in the hope that they will appreciate the labour and 
 the pains that have been devoted to its preparation. 
 
 C. S. P. 
 
 Philadelphia, October, 1886. 
 
 (5
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE RAILWAYS LIABILITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 I. Negligence the test of liability. 
 II. The liability as aftected by the quasi-public character of railways. 
 
 III. Negligence denned. 
 
 IV. Distinctions in degrees of negligence. 
 V. Proximate and remote cause. 
 
 VI. The liability for injuries caused by an act of God. 
 VII. The liability for injuries caused by an act of the public enemy. 
 VIII. The liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident. 
 
 IX. The liability for injuries caused solely by the act of the injured person 
 X. The liability for omissions and acts of commission by agents and 
 
 servants. 
 XI. The liability for the negligent acts of those who are not agents or 
 servants. 
 XII. The non-performance of a duty imposed by statutes or municipal 
 
 ordinances. 
 XIII. Ultra vires. 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 I. Contributory negligence in general. 
 II. The rule in Davies v. Mann.
 
 Vili TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 III. The case of T. & F. S. P. Ky. v. Boudrou. 
 1\'. Comparative negligence. 
 
 V. Negligence in avoiding danger or inconvenience. 
 
 VI. Non-performance of collateral statutory duty as proof of contributoiy 
 negligence. 
 VII. The contributory negligence of lunatics, idiots, and children. 
 VIII. The plaintiff's contributory negligence when suing for injuries to 
 another. 
 IX. The attribution to the passenger of the carrier's contributory negli- 
 gence. 
 X. The attribution of the contributory negligence of one who has been 
 killed to those who sue for damages for his death. 
 XI. The attribution of the contributory negligence of the contracting 
 party to the party on whose behalf the contract was made. 
 XII. The attribution of the contributory negligence of parents and guar- 
 dians to children. 
 XIII. The attribution to the person injured of the contributory negligence 
 of third persons. 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 THE TERSOXS FOR WHOSE ACTS OR OMISSIONS THE RAILWAY 
 
 IS LIABLE. 
 
 CHAPTEE . 
 
 THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE RAILWAY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS. 
 
 I. The liability as affected by the character of the act, as one of omission 
 or of commission. 
 II. Special and general agency. 
 III. Classification of the persons for whose acts railways are liable. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR SERVANTS. 
 
 I. The general nature of a master's liability for the acts of a servant. 
 II. The relation of master and servant must in fact exist. 
 
 III. The act must be within the scope of the servant's employment. 
 
 IV. If the relation exists, and if the act be within the scope of the employ 
 
 ment, it is not material that the master did not order the particulai 
 act.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 
 
 V. The liability of the railway for its servants' trespasses. 
 VI. The liability of the railway for its servants' wilful acts. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR THE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT CON- 
 TRACTORS. 
 
 I. The general rule of liability for the negligence of contractors. 
 II. The liability for a wrongful act done in pursuance of a contract. 
 Ill The liability for a contractor's non-performance of a duty incumbent 
 
 on the railway. 
 [V. The railway's obligation to anticipate negligence on the part of its 
 contractor. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. * 
 
 THE RAILWAY'S LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF OTHER RAIL- 
 WAYS AND OF PERSONS OTHER THAN SERVANTS AND CONTRACTORS. 
 
 I. The general rule determining the liability. 
 
 II. The liability of railways for lessees. 
 
 III. The liability of railways for mortgage trustees in possession. 
 
 IV. The liability of railways for receivers. 
 
 V. The liability of railways for means of transportation under the im- 
 mediate control of third parties. 
 VI. The liability of railways for connecting lines. 
 VII. The liability of a railway for the negligence of other railways which 
 under statutory authority use its line. 
 VIII. The liability of a railway for other railways or individuals which by 
 contract use its line. 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 THE PERSONS FOR INJURIES TO WHOM THE RAILWAY IS 
 
 LIABLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF THE PERSONS WHO MAY BE INJURED IN THE COCRSE 
 OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS.
 
 X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTEK II. 
 
 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE DETERMINING THE LIABILITY OF THE RAIL- 
 WAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE FIRST THREE CATEGORIES. 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE FIRST 
 CATEGORY, THAT IS, PERSONS WHO ARE RIGHTFULLY UPON HIGHWAYS 
 ADJOINING OR CROSSING THE RAILWAY'S LINE OR PREMISES. 
 
 I. The liability of the railway to travellers on the highway for traps 
 within its own premises which endanger the safety of the travellers 
 on the highway. 
 
 II. The liability of the railway to travellers on the highway for its negli- 
 
 gent construction of, or failure to repair, its buildings, etc. 
 
 III. The liability of the railway for injuries caused to persons on the high- 
 
 way by the negligent operation of its line. 
 
 IV. The liability of the railway for its negligent construction of, or failure 
 
 to repair, grade crossings. 
 V. The duty of the railway in the operation of its line at grade crossings. 
 VI. Contributory negligence at grade crossings. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE SEC- 
 OND CATEGORY, THAT IS, LICENSEES. 
 
 I. The liability for injuries resulting from negligence in the construction 
 of, or in the failure to repair, the railway's premises. 
 II. The liability for the negligent operation of the line. 
 III. The effect of notice not to trespass. 
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE THIRD 
 CATEGORY, THAT IS, TRESPASSERS. 
 
 I. Trespassers on railway premises. 
 n. The turn-table cases. 
 
 III. Trespassers upon the cars. 
 TV. Trespassers on the line. 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE FOURTH 
 CATEGORY, — PASSENGERS, ETC. 
 
 I. The general principle determining the liability. 
 II. Passengers.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 
 
 III. Persons to whom the railway owes the same measure of duty that it 
 
 owes to its passengers. 
 
 IV. The Pennsylvania Act of 4 April, 1868. 
 
 V. The general duty of the railway to its passengers and to those to 
 whom it owes a like duty. 
 VI. The duty as to the adoption of improved appliances and methods of 
 operation. 
 VII. Railway regulations as affecting passengers. 
 VIII. Station approaches, platforms, and buildings. 
 IX. Boarding and descending from cars. 
 X. The duty of the railway in the operation of its line. 
 XL Contributory negligence of passengers. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE FIFTH 
 CATEGORY, THAT IS, THE SERVANTS OF THE RAILWAY. 
 
 I. The general principle determining the liability of the railway to its 
 
 servants. 
 II. The duty of the railway in its original construction and subsequent 
 maintenance in repair of its line, rolling stock, and appliances. 
 
 III. The duty of the railway in its selection and retention of servants. 
 
 IV. The duty of the railway in its operation of its line. 
 
 V. The liability of railways to their servants for the negligence of othei 
 servants. 
 VI. The servant's implied undertaking to take upon himself the risks of 
 
 the service. 
 VII. Minor servants. 
 VIII. The servant's contributory negligence. 
 
 IX. Statutes affecting the liability of railways to their servants. 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 THE REMEDY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE FORM OF THE ACTION. 
 
 I. When the remedy is by action at law and when by suit in equity 
 II. When an action of trespass will lie. 
 
 III. The distinction between case and assumpsit. 
 
 IV. The joinder of common law and statutory claims. 
 V. Payment of money into court.
 
 Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR INJURIES CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 I. The statutory right of action. 
 II. The common-law right. 
 III. Terms of statutes conferring the right of action. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION. 
 
 I. The plaintiffs. 
 II. The defendants. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS AGAINST RAILWAYS FOR INJURIES TO THE PERSON 
 
 I. Admissibility of proof of declarations and admissions by agents and 
 servants of the railway. 
 II. Admissibility for the plaintiff of declarations of the person injured. 
 
 III. Admissibility for the railway of admissions and declarations of the 
 
 person injured. 
 
 IV. Admissibility of evidence as to changes in the construction or mode 
 
 of operation of the railway made subsequently to the happening 
 of the injury. 
 V. Inspection of the injuries of the person injured. 
 VI. Evidence as to the speed of trains. 
 VII. Evidence as to signals. 
 VIII. Admissibility of life tables in evidence. 
 IX. Evidence as to poverty of person injured, etc. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 I. The burden of proving negligence. 
 II. The burden of proving contributory negligence. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 I. The presumption as to negligence. 
 II. The presumption as to contributory negligence. 
 III. Certain minor presumptions.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE RESPECTIVE PROVINCES OF THE COURT AND THE JURY. 
 
 I. Negligence and contributory negligence as questions of fact. 
 II. The duty of the judge. 
 
 CHAPTER VIH. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 I. Damages for breaches of contract. 
 H. Damages for torts. 
 
 III. Exemplary damages. 
 
 IV. The measure of damages in cases of injuries not causing death. 
 V. The measure of damages in cases of injuries causing death. 
 
 VI. Statutory limitations of damages. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 RELEASES. 
 
 I. The railway's contractual exemption from liability as a carrier 
 
 II. Releases by the plaintiff or the person injured.
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 THE REFERENCES ARE TO THE PAGES. 
 
 Abell v. W. M. R. R, 63 Md. 
 433, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 503 203, 212, 372 
 
 Abend v. T. H. & I. Ry., Ill 111. 
 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 614 365, 368, 374 
 
 Abernethy, Schilling v., 17 Week- 
 ly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 364 184 
 
 Abert, Knight v., 6 Penna. St. 
 
 472 183 
 
 Abbett v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 30 
 
 Minn. 482 436, 454 
 
 Abbott v. Macfie, 2 H. & C. 744 39 
 Able, I. C. R. R. v., 59 111. 131 
 
 63, 265 
 Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 H. & N. 
 
 143 122, 342, 372 
 
 Ackermann, P. R. R. v., 74 Penna. 
 
 St. 265 158, 171 
 
 Ackerson v. E. R. R., 3 Vroom 
 
 254 471 
 
 A. C. S. & M. Co., Brown v., 3 
 
 H. & C. 511 122, 301 
 
 Adams, P. R. R. v., 55 Penna. St. 
 
 499 490 
 
 Illinois R. R. v., 42 111. 474 502 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 74 Mo. 
 553, 7 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 414 416 
 
 v. L. & Y. Ry., L. R. 4 C. P. 
 
 739 15, 16, 63, 279 
 
 v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. , 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 380 265 
 
 U. P. Ry. v., 33 Kans. 427, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 376 169, 173 
 
 A.dams Express Co. v. Sharpless, 
 
 77 Penna. St. 517, 522 449 
 v. Egbert, 36 Penna. St. 360 460 
 v. Hay nes, 42 111. 89 5n2 
 
 v. Brooks, 42 111. 458 502 
 
 Brehine v., 25 Md. 328 502 
 
 Agnew, P. & R. R. R. v., 11 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 394 307 
 
 Agricultural Ins. Co., Johnson v., 
 
 25 Hun 251 435 
 
 A. G. S. Ry., Gothard v., 67 Ala. 
 
 114 60,171 
 
 fl.Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 197 
 
 160, 251, 265, 284, 416 
 Albertson, N. O., J. & G. N. R. 
 
 R. v., 38 Miss. 242 274, 439 
 v. K. & D. M. R. R., 48 Iowu 
 292 76 
 
 Albrighton, Honor v., 93 Penna. 
 
 St. 475 356 
 
 Alcorn, Stewart v., 2 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 401 148 
 
 Alden v. N. Y. C. R. R., 26 N. Y. 
 
 102 235, 240 
 
 Alexander v N. Ry., 33 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 474; 35 Id. 453 502 
 Alestree, Mitchell v., 1 Ventr. 
 
 295 434 
 
 Allegheny, Reed v., 79 Penna. St. 
 
 300 122 
 
 Fritsch v., 91 Penna. St. 226 6 
 Weir v., 95 Penna. St. 413 471 
 Allen v. B., C. R. & N. Ry., 57 
 Iowa 623, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 620 303 
 
 v. Playward, 7 Q. B. 960, 53 
 
 E. C. L. 122 
 
 v. L. & S. W. Rv., L. R. 6 Q. 
 
 B. 65 110 
 
 Lockwood v., 7 Mass. 254 463 
 v. Willard, 57 Penna. St. 374 
 
 122, 434, 441 
 Hart v., 2 Watts 116 9 
 
 i;. New Gas Co., 1 Ex. D. 
 
 251 356 
 
 P. R. R. v., 53 Penna. St 
 St. 276 473 
 
 XV
 
 XVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Allen, L, P. & C. E. E. v., 31 Ind. 
 
 394 501 
 
 Schuchardt v., 1 Wall. 368 454 
 Alleuder v. C, E. I. & P. E. E., 
 
 37 Iowa 264 213, 480 
 
 v. O, E. I. & P. Ey., 43 Iowa 
 
 276 288 
 
 Allard, Wynn v., 5 W. & S. 524 47 
 
 Ailing, Sherlock v., 44 Ind. 184 233 
 
 Alison, Croft v., 4 B. & Aid. 590, 
 
 6E. C. L. 112,113 
 
 Allison v. C. & N. W. Ey., 42 
 
 Iowa 274 29, 292, 421 
 
 Alton v. Midland Ey., 19 C. B. 
 N. S. 243, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 390, 391, 400, 413 
 Allyn v. B. & A. E.E., 105 Mass. 
 
 77 434 
 
 Ambergate Ey., Watson v., 15 
 
 _ Jur. 448 137 
 
 American S. S. Co. v. Bryan, 83 
 
 Penna. St. 448 454 
 
 Express Co. v. Second Nat. 
 Bank of Titusville, 69 
 Penna. St. 394 501 
 
 Ames v. U. Ey., 117 Mass. 541 392 
 Anderson, P. & E. E. E. v., 94 
 Penna. St. 351, 6 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 407 
 
 30, 31, 34, 233, 240, 440 
 Co. v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227 454 
 Andrews, P. & C. E. E. v., 39 
 
 Md. 329 284, 447 
 
 Phelan v., 52 Penna. St. 486 460 
 Angus, Dalton v., 6 App. Cas. 
 
 740 129 
 
 Anneslev v. Earl of Anglesea, 17 
 
 How. St. Tr. 1139 423 
 
 Ansell v. Waterhouse, 6 M. & S. 
 
 393 _ 390, 391, 394 
 
 Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 
 
 Penna.St. 146 122, 305 
 
 Arnaud, Eegina v., 9 Q. B. 806, 
 
 58 E. C. L. 413 
 
 Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. S. 313 356 
 Arms, M. & St. P. Ey. v., 91 U. 
 
 S. 495 8, 471 
 
 Armstrong, C. E. E. v., 49 
 Penna. St. 186, 52 Id. 282 
 
 56, 60, 221, 227, 372, 491 
 Stevens v., 2 Seld. 435 102 
 
 v. L. & Y. Ey., L. E. 10 Ex. 
 
 47 80, 86 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 
 64 N. Y. 635 257 
 
 Armsworth v. S. E. Ey., 11 Jur. 
 
 758 469, 491 
 
 Arnold, Zell v., 2 Pen. & W. 292 390 
 v. I. C. E. E., 83 111. 273 
 
 251, 501, 503 
 
 Arnold, C. & L, C. C. E. E. v., 31 
 
 Ind. 174 306,366 
 
 A. E. E., Campbell v., 53 Ga. 
 
 488 60 
 
 Artz v. C, E. I. & P. Ey., 34 
 
 Iowa 153 170 
 
 Asbury, T. W. & W. Ey. v., 84 
 
 111. 429 301 
 
 Asbcraft, M. & M. E. E. v., 48 
 
 Ala. 16, 49 Id. 505 
 
 276, 420, 471 
 Ashmore v. Penna. Trans. Co., 28 
 
 N. J. L. 180 502 
 
 Asbton, Storey v., L. E. 4 Q. B. 
 
 476 102 
 
 Tarry v., 1 Q. B. D. 314 127, 148 
 Asbwortb v. Stanwix, 3 El. & El. 
 
 701, 107 E. C. L. 319 
 
 Aspell, P. E. E. v., 23 Penna. St. 
 
 147 22, 47, 63, 261, 262, 264 
 Assop v. Yates, 2 H. & N. 768 373 
 Aston v. Heaven, 2 Esp. 533 35 
 
 Atlanta, W. & A. E. E. v., Ga. 
 , 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 233 412 
 
 Atterton, Mangan v., L. E. 1 Ex. 
 
 239 39, 94, 95, 148 
 A., T. & S. F. E. E., Brown v., 21 
 
 Kans. 1, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 271 346 
 
 v. Thul, 29 Kans. 466, 10 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 378 424 
 
 Smith v., 59 Kans. 738, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 554 91 
 v. Plunkett, 25 Kans. 188, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 127 346 
 
 v. Flinn, 24 Kans. 627, 1 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 240 35, 72 
 v. Holt, 29 Kans. 149, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 206 303, 337 
 
 v. Eetford, 18 Kans. 245 308 
 v. Ledbetter, 34 Kans. 326, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 
 
 555 307 
 v. Wagner, 33 Kans. 660, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 
 637 307, 346 
 
 v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632, 11 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 243, 31 Kans. 197, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 312 
 
 329, 369 
 A., T. & S. F. E. E. v. McCandliss, 
 33 Kans. 366, 22 Am. & 
 Eng. K. E. Cas. 296 377
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XV11 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A., T. & S. F. R. R. v. Weber, 33 
 Kans. 543, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 418 482 
 
 Atwood v. Reliance Trans. Co., 
 
 9 Watts 87 501 
 
 Atkinson v. N . & G. Water-works 
 Co., L. R. 6 Ex. 404 ; 2 Ex. 
 D. 441 42 
 
 v. M. & C. R. R., 15 Ohio St. 
 21 134 
 
 Austin v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. 
 
 B. 442 205, 390 
 
 M. C. R. R. v., 40 Mich. 247 344 
 v. M. S. & L. Ry., 10 C. B. 
 473, 70 E. C. L. 498 
 
 A.V. R. R.v. Findlay, 4 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 438 224 
 
 v. McLain, 9 1 Penna. St. 442 389 
 Baker v., 95 Penna. St. 211, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 141 303, 306 
 
 Duffr, 91 Penn. St. 458, 
 188, 189, 196, 208, 209, 217, 288 
 Nagle v., 88 Penna. St. 35 70 
 O'Donnell v., 50 Penna. St. 
 490 59 Id. 239 
 
 211, 240, 286, 288, 305, 313 
 Avery, C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 109 
 111. 314, 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 649 313, 329 
 
 Aveson v. Lord Kinnard, 6 East. 
 
 188 417 
 
 Ayers, A. & R. A. L. R. R. Co. v., 
 
 53 Ga. 12 60 
 
 Ayles v. S E. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 
 
 146 444 
 
 A. & C, A. L. R. R. v. Wood- 
 ruff, 63 Ga. 707 308 
 v. Rav, 70 Ga. 674, 22 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 281 373, 379 
 A. & C, A., L. Ry., Britton v., 88 
 N. C. 536, "18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 391 250, 252, 281 
 A. & G. W. R. R. v. Dunn, 19 
 
 Ohio St. 162 471 
 
 A. & N. R, R., Culp v., 17 Kans. 
 
 475 151 
 
 v. Bailey, 11 Neb. 332, 10 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 742 186 
 
 A. & P. R. R., Speed v., 71 Mo. 
 303, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 77 125, 133, 141, 344 
 
 Malier v., 64 Mo. 267 375 
 
 Nelson v., 68 Mo. 593 55, 265 
 A. & R. A. L. R. R. v. Ayres, 53 
 
 Ga. 12 60 
 
 A. & R. R. R., Presbyterian So- 
 ciety v., 3 Hill 367 4 
 
 B 
 
 A. & St. L. R. R., Mahoney v., 
 
 63 Me. 68 133 
 
 Hopkins v., 36 N. H. 9 471 
 
 A. & S. R. R., Collins v., 12 Barb. 
 
 492 2S2 
 
 v. McElmurry, 24 Ga. 75 60, 160 
 A. & W. P. R. R., Vickers v., 64 
 Ga. 300, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 337 69 
 
 Gasway v., 58 Ga. 216 113, 114 
 v. Webb, 61 Ga. 586 308 
 
 v. Wyly, 65 Ga. 120, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 262 60, 159 
 Stiles v., 65 Ga. 370, 8 Am. 
 & Eng.R.R. Cas. 195 220, 272 
 A. & F. R. R. v. Waller, 48 Ala. 
 
 459 313 
 
 Babbitt, Crispin v., 81 N. Y. 516 328 
 Bachas, I. C. R. R. v., 55 111. 379 166 
 Bacon, John v., L. R. 5 C. P. 437 
 
 136, 241 
 
 B. & P. R. R. v., 58 Md. 482, 
 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 4U9 191 
 
 Baddely, T. W. & W. R. R. v. 54 
 
 111. 19 233, 263, 292 
 
 Bailey, A. & N. R. R. v., 11 Neb. 
 
 332, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 742 186 
 
 Baker v. A. V. R. R., 95 Penna. 
 
 St. 211, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 141 304, 306 
 
 v. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493 397 
 
 v. Portland, 58 Me. 199 65 
 
 v. W. & A. R. R., 68 Ga. 699 
 
 307, 382 
 Baird v. Pettit, 70 Penna. St. 477 372 
 Baldwin v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 50 
 
 Iowa 680 309 
 
 Baldauf, C. & A. R. R. v., 16 
 
 Penna. St. 67 501 
 
 Ball, Springett v., 4 F. & F. 472 470 
 Ballou v. C. & N. W. Ry., 54 
 
 Wise. 257, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 480 307, 309, 346 
 
 C. P. Mfg. Co. v., 71 111. 418 342 
 v. Farnum, 9 Allen 47 135 
 
 Bangs, L. S. & M. S. Ry. v., 47 
 Mich. 470, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 426 264 
 
 Banin, E. & C. R. R. v., 26 Ind. 
 
 70 108 
 
 Bank of England, Yarborough v., 
 
 16 East 6, 99, 107 
 of London, Lawson v., 18 C. 
 
 B. 84, 86 E. C. L. 99, 112 
 
 of New South Wales v. 
 
 Owston, 4 A pp. Cas. 270 110 
 of Orange v. Brown, 3 Wend. 
 
 158 390
 
 XY111 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Banks v. H. St. By., 1 30 Mass. 4S5, 
 
 19 Am. «t Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 139 65, 111 
 
 Bant'ora, P. R. R. v., 54 Penna. 
 
 St. 495 492, 493 
 
 Bancroft v. B. & W. R. R., 97 
 
 Mass. 275 259 
 
 Barbour, Barton v., 104 U. S. 135 
 
 4, 136, 385 
 Barber, R. R. v., 50 Obio St. 541 
 Bard v. Yohn, 26 Penna. St. 482 102 
 Barber v. Reese, 60 Miss. 906 29 
 
 Barber, M. R. & L. E. R. R. v., 5 
 
 Ohio St. 541 301, 307 
 
 Barker, P. P. C. Co. v., 4 Colo. 
 
 344 2.-53, 292 
 
 Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 392, 67 
 
 E. C. L. 148 
 
 Barnett, P. R. R. v., 59 Penna. 
 
 259 151, 153 
 
 Barney, Cardot v., 63 N. Y. 281 136 
 Barden v. B. C. & F. R. R., 121 
 
 Mass. 426 282 
 
 Barker, L. R. & F. S. Ry. v., 39 
 
 Ark. 491, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 195 489 
 
 Barry v. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 121 122 
 Barringer v. D. & H. C. Co., 19 
 
 Hun 216 307. 368 
 
 Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9 ' 134 
 Barron, I. C. R. R. v., 5 Wall. 90 
 
 133, 141,469, 473 
 Barry v. N. Y. C. & H. R R. R., 
 
 92 N. Y. 289, 13 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 615 
 
 69, 162, 179 
 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire, 
 
 3 Macq. H. L. 307 356 
 v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. 282, 
 
 4 Jur. N. S. 767 
 
 97, 99, 100, 353, 355, 356 
 Bartlett, Blodgett v., 50 Ga. 353 
 
 265, 284 
 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 135 
 
 4, 136, 385 
 Barwick v. English Joint Stock 
 
 Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 259 106 
 Bass v. C. & N. W. Ry., 36 Wise. 
 450, 39 Id. 636, 42 Id. 654 
 
 113, 251, 416 
 Bateman, Moffat v., L. R. 3 P. C. 
 
 115 293 
 
 Batchelor v. Fortescue, 11 Q. B. 
 
 D. 474 177 
 
 Batson v. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 
 
 39 498 
 
 Batterson v. C. & G. T. Ry., 49 
 Mich. 184, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 123 
 
 301, 304, 305, 346 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Baston v. G. 11. R., GO Ga. 340 190 
 Baxendale, Hadley v., 9 Ex. 341 460 
 Riley v., 6 H. & N. 445 342 
 
 Baxter v. Roberts, 44 Cal. 187 
 Bayfield, C. & N. W. R. R. v., 37 
 
 Mich. 205 112, 350 
 
 Bayley v. M. S. & L. Ry., L. R. 7 
 C. P. 415, 8 Id. 148 
 
 106, 108, 109 
 Baylis v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 113 
 
 U. S. 316 454, 456 
 
 Baylor v. D. L. & W. R. R., 40 
 
 N. J. L. 23 302, 345 
 
 Baughman v. S. & A. R. R., 92 
 
 Penna. St. 335 156, 172 
 
 Baulec v., N. Y & II. R. R., 59 
 
 N. Y. 356 314, 315 
 
 Bailey, N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v., 
 
 ' 40 Miss. 395 224 
 
 Baird v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 55 
 Iowa 121, 13 N. W. Rep. 
 731, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 128, 61 Iowa 359, 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 75 305 
 
 Bannon v. B. & O. R. R., 24 Md. 
 
 108 193 
 
 Bartram, C. C. & C. R. R. v., 11 
 
 Ohio St. 457 251 
 
 B. Canal Co , Dunn v., L. R. 7 Q. 
 
 B. 244, 8 Id. 42 146 
 
 B. C. P. Ry. v. Kemp., 61 Md. 74, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 220 28, 391, 481 
 
 B. C. P. R. R. v. McDonnell, 43 
 
 Md. 552 42 
 
 B. C. R. P., Mulhado v., 30 N. 
 
 Y. 370 274, 424 
 
 Mangan v., 30 N. Y. 445 68 
 
 Spooner v., 54 N. Y. 230 290 
 Cregin v., 83 N. Y. 595 398, 481 
 Busch v., 29 Hun 112 86 
 
 Mangam v., 38 K Y r . 456 91 
 
 B. C. R. R., Day v., 76 N. Y. 593 114 
 Eppendorf v., 69 N. Y. 195 291 
 B. C. R. T. & N. R. R-, Smith v., 
 
 6 Ex. 149 
 B. C. R. & N. By. v. Dowell, 62 
 Iowa 629, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 153 434 
 
 v. Coates, 62 Iowa 487, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 265 
 
 346, 431 
 Hawes v., 64 Iowa 315, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 220 436, 508 
 
 Crowley v.. 65 Iowa 658, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 56 318 
 Allen v., 57 Iowa 623, 5 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 620 308
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XIX 
 
 B. C. K. & N. Ry., Bryant v., 66 
 Iowa 305, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 593 347 
 
 Plaver v., 62 Iowa 723, 12 
 •Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 11 -J 283 
 
 Raymond?'., 65 Iowa 152, 13 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 6, 
 18 Id. 217 436 
 
 Wells v., 56 Iowa 520, 2 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243 
 
 302, 345 
 Manning v., 64 Iowa 240, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 171 306 
 
 B. C. R. & M. Ry., Verry v., 47 
 
 Iowa 549 " 416 
 
 Black v., 38 Iowa 515 157 
 
 B. C. & N. R. R., Nolan v., 87 N. 
 Y. 63, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 463 290 
 
 Dixon v., 100 N. Y. 171 
 
 275, 508 
 Van Horn v., 59 Iowa 33, 7 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 591 426 
 B. C. & P. R. R., Metz v., 58 N. 
 
 Y. 61 135, 136 
 
 B. C. & F. R. R., Barden v., 121 
 
 Mass. 426 282 
 
 Beach v. Parmeter, 23 Penna. St. 
 
 197 35 
 
 Beal v. S. D. Ry., 3 H. & C. 341 8 
 Anderson Co. v., 113 U. S. 
 227 454 
 
 Beale, P. R. R. v., 73 Penna. St. 
 
 504 169, 171 
 
 Beard v. C. & P. R. R., 48 Vt. 1 01 254 
 Woolf v., 8 C. & P., 373, 34 
 E. C. L. 36 
 
 Beaver, I. R. R. v., 41 Ind. 493 
 
 205, 292 
 Beatty v. Gilmore, 16 Penna. St. 
 
 463 148 
 
 v. C. I. Ry., 58 Iowa 242, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 210 148, 152, 155 
 
 Beauchamp v. I. & G. N. Ry., 56 
 
 Tex. 239 251 
 
 v. S. Mining Co., 50 Mich. 
 163 29 
 
 Beck v. Weeks, 34 Conn. 145 502 
 Becker, C. & A. R. R. v., 76 111, 
 
 25 74 
 
 Beckman v. Shause, 5 Rawle 
 
 179 501 
 
 Beems v. C, R. I. & P- R. R., 58 
 Iowa 150, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 658 377 
 
 Belair v. C. & N. W. R. R., 43 
 
 Iowa 662 377 
 
 Bell, Dixon v., 5 M, & S. 198, 1 
 
 Stark. 287, 2 E. C. L. 39, 95 
 C.,R. I.&P.R. R. v., 70 111. 
 
 1(12 74, 171 
 
 v. Midland Ry., 10 C. B. N. 
 
 S. 287, 100 E. C. L. 471 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 
 50,4 Am. & Eng.-R. R. 
 Cas. 580 111, 160, 193, 447 
 St. L., V. & T. H. R. R. v., 
 
 81 111. 76 186 
 
 v. I. C. & R. Ry., 53 Ind. 57 135 
 Beggs, T. W. & W. R. R. v., 85 
 
 111. 80 188, 208, 209, 240 
 
 Behrens v. K. P. Ry., 5 Col. 400, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 184 374, 375, 436 
 
 Beisiegel v. N. Y, C. Ry., 40 N. 
 
 Y. 9 " 157, 162, 163 
 
 Bennett, Brien v., 8 C. & P. 724, 
 
 34 E. C. L. 213 
 
 v. G. T. Ry., 3 Ont. C. P. D. 
 446, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 627 160, 161 
 
 v. N. J. R. R., 36 K J. Law 
 
 225 86 
 
 v. L. & N. R. R., 102 U. S. 
 577, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 71 201, 253 
 
 Quarman v., 6 M. & W. 499 
 
 102, 103, 120 
 Benton v. C. R. R., 42 Iowa 192 170 
 v.C, R. 1. & P. Ry., 55 Iowa 
 
 496 
 
 109 
 
 Bentley, P. Canal Co. v., 66 Penna. 
 
 St. 32 436, 454 
 
 Berg v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 50 
 
 Wise. 419, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 70 344 
 
 Bernard, Coggs v., 2 Ld. Raymond 
 
 918, 1 Sm. Lead. Cas. 189 
 
 207 231 
 Berringer v. G. E. Ry., 4 C. P. D. 
 
 163 393 
 
 Berry v. Cooper, 28 Ga. 543 501 
 
 v. C. Ry., 40 Iowa 564 470 
 
 Besel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 70 N. Y. 171, 9 Hun 457 
 
 318, 368, 369 
 Beman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. N. S. 
 
 550 133 
 
 Bett v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. Corpor. Cas. 
 
 437 42 
 
 Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N. Y. 
 
 547 329 
 
 Bessex v. C. & N. W. Ry., 45 
 
 Wise. 477 308 
 
 B. H. R. R., Jacques v., 41 Conn. 
 
 61 473
 
 XX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 B. II. & E. E. E., Goodfellow v., 
 
 106 Mass. 46 1 179 
 
 School Dist. v., 102 Mass. 552 501 
 B-, H. & H. B. E., Thompson, v., 
 
 5 Ir. C. L. 517 262 
 
 Bidwell, McKee v, 74 Penna. St. 
 
 218 201, 422, 454 
 
 Bigelow v. Beid, 51 Me. 325 65 
 
 Bigelow Carpet Co., Bryant v., 131 
 
 Mass. 491 394 
 
 Bilbee v. L., B. & S. C. By., 18 
 
 C.B.N.S.5S4,114E.C L. 165 
 Billings, Shirley v., 8 Bush. 147 
 
 114,233 
 Billman v. L, C & L. E. B., 76 
 Ind. 166, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 E. B. Cas. 41 13, 26, 151 
 
 Bills, Ingalls v., 9 Mete. 1 233 
 
 Bingham v. Bogers, 6 W. & S. 495 501 
 Bininger, Crater v., 33 N. J. L. 
 
 512 460 
 
 Binks v. S. Y. Bv., 3 B. & S. 244, 
 
 113 E. C.'L. 183 
 
 Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628, 15 
 
 E. C. L. 39, 183 
 
 v. G. AV. By., 28 L. J. Exch. 
 3 439 
 
 Birge v. Gardner, 19 Conn. 507 91 
 Birmingham Water-works Co., 
 
 Blythu, 11 Ex.781 6,12.146 
 Birkett v. AV. H. J. By., 4 H. & 
 
 N. 730 138 
 
 Bissell v. N. Y. C. E. B., 25 N. Y. 
 
 442 502 
 
 v. M.S.&N.I.Ey., 22N.Y. 
 258 43, 138, 414 
 
 Bishop, W. & A. E. E. v., 50 Ga. 
 
 465 510 
 
 Black v. C. B. E., 10 La. An. 38 233 
 v. D. & E. Canal Co., 22 N. 
 
 J. Eq. 130 133 
 
 T'., AV. & AV. E. E. v., 88 111. 
 
 112 346, 376 
 
 v. B., C, E. & M. By., 38 
 Iowa 515 157 
 
 Blackburn, Sarch v., 4 C. & P. 297, 
 
 19 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Blair v. E. By., 66 N. Y. 313 
 
 216, 502 
 Blake, G. AV. By. v., 7 IL & N. 
 
 987 138 
 
 v. M. C. E. E., 70 Me. 60 
 
 314, 368 
 v. Midland By., 18 Q. B. 93, 
 
 83E.C. L. 486,491,492,493 
 
 v. Ferris, 5 N. Y. 58 122 
 
 v. Thirst, 2 II. & C. 20 123,127 
 
 Blakely, M. E. E. v., 59 Ala. 477 233 
 
 Blakemore v. B. & E. Bv., 8 El. 
 
 & Bl. 1035, 92 E. C. L. 224 
 
 Blamires v. L. & Y. By., L. E. 8 
 
 Ex. 283 41, 276 
 
 Blessing v. St. L., K. C. & N. By., 
 
 77 Mo. 410, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 298 366 
 
 Blocher, B. & O. E. E. v., 27 Md. 
 
 277 114, 471 
 
 Blodgett v. Bartlett, 50 Ga. 353 
 
 265, 284 
 Bluhm, P. P. C. Co. v., 109 111. 
 
 20, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 87 306, 480 
 
 Blumenthal v. Smith, 38 Vt. 402 
 
 136 
 Blyth v. Birmingham Water- 
 works Co., 11 Ex.781 6,12,146 
 v. Topham, Cro. Jac. 158 183 
 B. L. & C. J. By., Eoe v., 7 Ex. 
 
 36 107, 110, 112, 113 
 
 Winch «., 5 De G. & S. 562, 
 
 16 Jur. 1035 133 
 
 Boadle, Byrne v., 2 H. & C. 722 
 
 148, 440 
 Bock, P. E. E. v., 93 Penna. St. 
 
 427, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 20 76, 168, 395 
 
 Boland v. Mo. E. E., 36 Mo. 484 
 
 54,69 
 Bolch v. Smith, 7 H. & N. 736 
 
 176 
 Boldt v. N. Y. C. E. E., 18 N. Y. 
 
 432 356 375 
 
 Bonifieldfc. & A. E. E. v., 104 
 
 111. 223, 8 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 443 264, 364 
 
 Books v. Borough of Danville, 95 
 
 Penna. St. 158 407 
 
 P. E. E. v., 57 Penna. St. 345 
 
 209, 445, 468, 471, 473 
 Booth v. B. & A. E. E., 73 N. Y. 
 
 38 _ 317, 329, 330, 337 
 
 Borries v. Hutchinson, 18 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 445,114 E.G. L. 460 
 Borough of Danville, Books v., 95 
 
 Penna. St. 158 407 
 
 of Susquehanna Depot v. Sim- 
 mons, 17 Weekly Notes of 
 
 Cases (Penna.) 362 122 
 
 Borst v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 66 N. 
 
 Y. 639 151, 155 
 
 Boston, Bowditch v., 101 U. S. 16 454 
 Gas-light Co., Holly v., 8 
 
 Gray 123 91 
 
 Boswell v. Laird, 8 Cal. 469 122 
 
 Bosworth v. Swansev, 10 Mete. 
 
 363 65 
 
 Bottsford v. M. C. Br., 33 Mich. 
 
 256 303 
 
 Bothwell, Chapman v., 4 Jur. N. 
 
 S. 1181 489
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXI 
 
 Boudrou, 13th & 15th Sts.P. Ev. 
 
 Co. v., 92 Penna. St. 480, 
 
 8 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 244 47,48,57,290,495 
 Boulter v. Webster, 13 W. K. 2*9 
 
 489, 493 
 Boulton, White v., Peake 113 232 
 Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 16 454 
 Bowen v. D. C. S. Ey., 54 Mich. 
 
 496, 19 Am. & Eng. B. E. 
 
 Cas. 131 150 
 
 v. N. Y. C. E. E., 18 N. Y. 
 
 408 246 
 
 J., M. & I. E. E. v., 49 Ind. 
 
 154 76 
 
 Bower v. Peate, 1 Q. B. D. 326 97, 128 
 v. G, M. & St. P. By., 61 
 
 Wise. 457, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 301 169, 420 
 
 Boyce, Jones v., 1 Stark. 493, 2 
 
 E. C. L. 14,62 
 
 Boyd, G. E. & I. E. E. v., 65 Ind. 
 
 526 235, 240 
 
 Boyer, Hughes v., 9 Watts 556 
 
 102, 454 
 P. & E. E. E. v., 97 Penna. 
 
 St. 91, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas 172 
 
 '42,82,86,164,168,443,495 
 Bolton, Mel. E. E. v., 43 Ohio St. 
 
 224, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 501 212, 370 
 
 Baker v., 1 Camp. 493 397 
 
 Bowler, L. & N. E. E. v., 9 Heisk. 
 
 (Tenn.) 866 323, 370 
 
 Bonham, S. C. Co. v., 9 W. & S. 
 
 27 134 
 
 Bonnell v. D., L. & W. E. E., 39 
 
 N. J. L. 189 169 
 
 Boring, M. & W. P. E. E. v., 51 
 
 Ga. 582 134 
 
 Boorman, Brown v., 11 CI. & Fin. 
 
 44 391 
 
 Boss v. P. & W. E. E.. E. I. 
 , 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 364 264 
 
 Boylan, Penna. Co. v., 104 111. 
 
 595, 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 734 156 
 
 Bohan, M., L. S. & W. Ev., 58 
 
 Wise. 30, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 374; 61 Wise. 
 
 391, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 276 167 428 
 
 B., P. & C Ey. v. McDonald, 68 
 
 Inch 316 280 
 
 v. Pixley, 61 Ind. 22 467, 470 
 B., P. & W. E. E. v. O'llara, 
 
 12 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 473 207, 208, 501 
 
 Bradshaw v. L. & Y. Ey., L. E. 
 
 10 C. P. 189 401 
 
 Brahbitts v. C. & N. W. Ey., 38 
 
 Wise. 289 356 
 
 v. B. W. Ey., 38 Mo. 289 382 
 Braddick, Fletcher v., 5 Bos. & 
 
 Pul. 182 103 
 
 Bradley v. B. & M. E. E., 2 Cush. 
 
 539 162 
 
 Braid, G. W. Ey. v., 1 Moo. P. C. 
 
 N.S. 101, 9 Jur. N. S. 339 
 
 31, 32, 240, 440 
 Bradburn v. G. W. Ey., L. E. 10 
 
 Ex. 1 474, 494 
 
 Bramall v. Lees, 29 L. T. 82 486, 489 
 Brame, Mob. L. Ins. Co. v., 95 
 
 U. S. 754 399 
 
 Branagan, T., W. & W. Ev. v., 75 
 
 Ind. 490, 5 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 630 434, 436 
 
 Brannon, P., W. & B. E. E. v., 17 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 227 13, 26, 107 
 
 Brann v. O, E. I. & P. Ey., 53 
 
 Iowa 595 303, 330, 369 
 
 Brassell v. N. Y. C. & B. E. E. E., 
 
 84 N. Y. 241, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 380 254, 257 
 
 Bregy, B. & O. E. E. v., 32 Md. 
 
 333 502 
 
 Brehme v. Adams Ex. Co., 25 Md. 
 
 328 502 
 
 Bremner v. Williams, 1 C. & P. 
 
 414, 11 E. C. L. 232 
 
 Brett, Wilson v., 11 M. & W. 115 8 
 Bremen, Gleason v., 50 Me. 222 436 
 Bresmer, G. & C. St. Ev. v., 97 
 
 Penna. St. 103 349, 373 
 
 Brickman v. S. C. E. E., 8 S. C. 173 305 
 Brien v. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724, 
 
 34 E. C. L. 213 
 
 Brick v. E., N. Y. & P. E. E., 98 
 
 N. Y. 212, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E.E.Cas.605 323,328,347.368 
 Bridge v. G. J. Ey., 3 M. & W. 
 
 244 45, 47, 51, 78, 86 
 
 Bridges v. N. L. Ev., L. E. 6 Q. 
 
 B. 371,7 ILL. 232 
 
 6, 261, 262, 266, 268, 450, 454 
 Briggs v. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180 8, 446 
 v. Oliver, 4 FL & C. 408 200 
 
 Brigham, P., F. W. & C. Ey. v., 
 
 29 Ohio St. 374 31, 32, 177 
 Brignoli v. C. & G. E. E. E., 4 
 
 Daly 182 240, 275, 439 
 
 Britton v. A. & C. A. L. Ey., 88 
 
 N. C. 536, 18 Am & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 391 250, 252, 281 
 v. G. AV. Cotton Co., L. E. 7 
 
 Ex. 130 41, 304
 
 XXII 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Brinson, R. E. v., 70 Ga. 207, 
 64 Id. 475, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R.R.Cas.42 190,192,197,443 
 Brocksmidt, Owen v., 54 Mo. 285 493 
 Britz, St. L. & S. E. Ry. v., 72 111. 
 
 261 342, 368 
 
 Brooks, T., W. & W. R. R. v, 81 
 
 111. 245, 292 188, 208, 209 
 
 v. Somervillc, 106 Mass. 271 454 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 135 Mass. 
 21, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 ('as. 345 262,263,266 
 
 Adams Ex. Co. ?-., 42 111. 458 502 
 Brooke, Mayor of Colchester v., 
 7 Q. B. 339, 377, 53 E. C. 
 L. 51, 54 
 
 Brooklyn, Lehman v., 29 Barb. 
 
 234 441 
 
 Broom, E. C. Ry. v., 6 Ex. 314 
 
 99, 110, 112, 113 
 Brokaw v. N. J. R. R., 3 Vroom 
 
 328 108 
 
 B. R R., Burns v., 50 Mo. 1 39 290 
 Brophv, G. P. Ry. v., 105 Penna. 
 St. 38, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 361 285 
 
 Brotherton t>.Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 
 
 54, 7 E. C. L. 390, 394 
 
 Brown, Caldwell v., 53 Penna. St. 
 
 453 323, 356, 493 
 
 v. A., T. & S. F. R. R , 31 
 Kans. 1, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 271 346 
 
 v. A. C. S. & M. Co., 3 H. & 
 
 C 511 122,301 
 
 v. C, M. & St. P. Ry„ 54 
 Wise 342, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 444 25, 27, 292, 407 
 v. C. & B. St. Ry., 49 Mich. 
 153, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 385 112, 434 
 
 v. French, 14 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 412 112 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 34 N. Y. 
 
 404, 32 Id. 600 166,246,275 
 O. & R. V. R. It. v., 14 Neb. 
 170, 1 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 501 32 
 
 Sills v., 9 C. & P. 601, 38 E. 
 
 C. L. 47, 48 
 
 v. E. & N. A. R. R., 58 Me. 
 
 384 91 
 
 v. B. &S. L. R. R., 22N.Y. 
 
 191 42 
 
 Bank of Orange v,, 3 Wend. 
 
 158 390 
 
 v. M. & St. L. Ry., 31 Minn. 
 553, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 333 366 
 
 v. M. R R., 64 Mo. 536 188 
 
 Brown v. W. & St. P. R. R., 27 
 
 Minn. 162 368 
 
 W.,A.&G.R.R.v.,17Wall. 
 
 445 132, 133 
 
 v. II. & St. J. R. R., 50 Mo. 
 
 461 196 
 
 v. M., K. & T. R. R., 64 Mo. 
 
 536 208 
 
 v. G. W. Ry., 40 Up. Can. Q. 
 
 B. 333, 2 Ont. Ap. Cas. 64, 
 
 3 Can. S. C. 159 221 
 
 v. Boorman, 11 01. & Fin. 
 44 391 
 
 Brownell v. Flagler, 5 Hill 282 50 
 Bruce, P. & L. E. R. R. v., 102 
 
 Penna. St. 23 4 
 
 Bruner, Johnson v., 61 Penna. St. 
 
 58 300 
 
 Bryan, American S. S. Co. v., 83 
 
 Penna. St. 448 454 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 31 Barb. 
 
 335 86 
 
 Thorogood v., 8 C. B. 115, 65 
 E. C L. 78, 85, 86 
 
 Bryant v. Eigelow Carpet Co., 
 
 131 Mass. 491 394 
 
 v. B., C, R. & N. Ry., 66 
 Iowa 305, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 593 347 
 
 v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180, 202 114 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 6ii Iowa 
 464, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 335 114 
 
 Brydon v. Stewart, 2 Macq. H. L. 
 
 30 314 
 
 Broue,hton v. M. G. W. Ry., 1 Ir. 
 
 C. L. 169 146 
 Brownell v. P. R. R., 47 Mo. 
 
 240 417 
 
 B. Ry., Carey v., 1 Cush. 475 397 
 
 Brand, H. Rv. v., L. R. 1 Q. B. 
 
 130, 2 "id. 223, L. R. 4 H. 
 
 L. 171 146 
 
 Bracken v. G. H. & S. A. Rv., 57 
 
 Tex 71. 14 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 691 168 
 
 Bresnahan v. M. C. Rv., 49 Mich. 
 
 410, 8 Am. &'Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 147 190 
 
 B. S. R. R v. Harris, 67 Ala. 6 473 
 B.. S., O. & B. R. R. v. Rainbolt, 
 
 99 Ind. 551, 21 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 466 240, 440 
 Bucher, Higgins v., Yelv. S9 397 
 
 v. Fitchburg R. R., 131 Mass. 
 
 156, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 212 65 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R-, 98 
 
 N. Y. 128, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 361 263, '464, 287
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XX111 
 
 Buck, T. H. &. I. K. K. ?•., 96 Ind. 
 
 346, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 234 28, 266 
 
 Buckingham, Lamphear v., 33 
 
 Conn. 237 134 
 
 Buckner, I. C. R. R. v., 28 111. 
 
 299 75 
 
 Budd, DufF v., 3 Brod. & B. 177, 
 
 7 E. C. L. 7 
 
 Bull v. M. & M. Ry., 67 Ma. 206 367 
 Bueneinann v. St. P., M. A: M. 
 
 Ry., 32 Minn 390. 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. (as. 153 254 
 Buel v. N. Y. C. R. R., 31 N. Y. 
 
 314 15, 62 
 
 Buesching ». Gas-light Co., 73 
 
 Mo. 229 436, 444 
 
 Buffett v. T. & B. R. R., 40 N. Y. 
 
 168 136. 214, 242 
 
 Bunting v. C. P. R. R., 14 Nev. 
 
 351, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 282 427 
 
 Burbank, McLean v., 11 Minn. 
 
 277 139 
 
 Burdge, I. B. & W. Rv. v., 94 Ind. 
 
 46, 18 Am. &"Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas 192 109 
 
 Burke, N. O., St. L. & C. R.R. v., 
 
 53 Miss. 200 281 
 
 v. S. E. Ry., 5 C. P. D. 1 500 
 Wanamaker v., 17 "Weekly 
 
 .Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 225 373 
 
 v. Witherbee, 98 N. Y. 562 301 
 Burns v. Poulson, L. R. 8 C. P. 
 
 563 102 
 
 v. C. & Y. Ry., 13 C. L. (N. 
 
 S.) 543 237 
 
 1 B. R. R., 50 Mo. 139 290 
 
 v. B. & L. R. R., 101 Mass. 
 
 50 224 
 
 Burnett, Owen v., 4 Tvr. 133 7 
 
 Burgess v. G. W. Rv., 6 C. B. N. 
 
 S. 923, 95 E.*C. L. 253 
 
 Burling v. I. C. R. R., 85 111. 18 
 
 318 377 
 Burrows v. Erie Ry., 63 N.Y.' 
 
 556 103, 264 
 
 v. March. G. & C. Co. L. R. 
 
 5 Ex. 66, 7 Id. 96 95 
 
 Burnett v. B. & M. R. R,, 16 Neb. 
 
 332, 19 Am. & Eng. R.R. 
 
 Cas. 25 54, 193 
 
 Bush v. Johnston, 23 Penna. St. 
 
 209 148 
 
 v. Steinman, 1 Bos. & Pul. 
 
 404 119 
 
 Burton v. Pinkerton, L. R. 2 Ex. 
 
 340 461 
 
 v. Price, 57 Cal. 272 509 
 
 Burton v. G. H. & S. A. R. R.. 
 61 Tex. 526, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 218 123 
 
 v. P., W. & B. R. R., 4 Har- 
 rington 252 152 
 v. W. J. Ferry Co., 114 U. S. 
 471 282 
 Busch v. B. C. R. R., 29 Hun 112 86 
 Bussian v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 50 
 "Wise. 325, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 716 152, 508 
 Bussy v. Donaldson, 4 Dall. 206 468 
 Butler v. M. & St. P. Rv., 28 Wise. 
 
 487 166, 173 
 
 P. R.R.r., 57 Penna. St. 336 
 
 207, 468, 491, 501 
 Cooper v., 103 Penna. St. 412, 
 14 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna) 278 37tf, 374 
 
 Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 
 
 60 45, 47, 51 
 
 v. W. R R., 10 Allen 532 168 
 Button v. H. R. R. R., 18 N. Y. 
 
 248 54, 436 
 
 C. & N. W. Ry. v., 6S 111. 409 411 
 Buxton v. N. E. Ry., L. R. 3 Q. 
 
 B. 549 138 
 
 Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722 
 
 148, 440 
 N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 94 
 
 N.Y. 12 160,161 
 
 v. N.Y. C.&H. R. R.R., 83 
 N. Y. 620 69 
 
 B. & A. R. R., Allyn v., 105 Mass. 
 
 77 434 
 
 Carpenter v., 24 Hun. 104, 97 
 N. Y. 494, 21 Am & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 331 102, 255 
 
 Corcoran v., 133 Mass. 507 
 
 299, 434, 442, 444 
 Booth v., 73 N. Y. 38 
 
 317,329,330,337 
 Forsvth v., 103 Mass. 510 
 
 2-3;;, 254. 259 
 Mackint',, 135 Mass. 201, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 196 
 
 309, 311, 335, 367 
 Murdock v., 13." Mass. 15, 6 
 Am. A; Eng. R. R. Cas. 406 
 
 395, 467 
 Peeples v.. 60 Ga. 281 114 
 
 Roser., 58 N. Y. 217 316 
 
 Sweeney v., 128 Mass. 5. 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 138 180 
 Murphv v., 88 N. \ . 146, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 510 
 
 306, 369 
 Sprong v., 58 N. Y. 56 374 
 
 Flike v., 53 N. Y. 549 
 
 317, 322, 330
 
 XXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 B. & A. E. E., Elkins v., 115 
 
 Mass. 190 C9 
 
 Dickie v., 131 Mass. 516, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 203 149 
 Tinney v., 62 Barb. 218 299 
 
 Murphy v., 133 Mass. 121 179 
 Clark «., 128 Mass. 1, 1 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. E. Cas. 134 375 
 Eamsden v., 104 Mass. 117 
 
 109, 110 
 Wheelwright v., 135 Mass. 
 225, 16 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 315 260 
 
 Wheelock v., 105 Mass. 203 257 
 B. & B. Ey. v. Keys, 9 H. L. C. 
 
 555 209 
 
 B. & C. E. E., Stewart v., 90 N. 
 Y. 5S8, 12 Am. & Eng. E. 
 E. Cas. 127 114, 117 
 
 B. & E. Ey., Blakemore v., 8 El. 
 
 & Bl. 1035, 92 E. C. L. 224 
 v. Collins, 7 II. L. 194 137 
 
 Praeger v., 24 L. T. N. S. 105 
 
 266, 267 
 Tebbutt v., L. E. 6 Q. B. 73 
 
 217, 256 
 B. & H. S. E. E., Dietrich v., 58 
 Md.347,llAm. & Eng. E. 
 E. Cas. 115 291,416,454 
 
 B. & I. E. E. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio 
 
 St. 670 76 
 
 v. Snyder, 18 Ohio St. 399 91 
 B. & J. E. Co., Sweeny v., 101 N. 
 
 Y. 520, 524 343 
 
 B. & L. E. E., O'Connor v., 135 
 Mass. 352, 15 Am & Eng. 
 E.B.Cas.362 69, 70, 166, 180 
 Burns v., 101 Mass. 50 224 
 
 Chaffee v., 104 Mass. 108 257 
 Gahaganw., 1 Allen 187 283 
 
 Commonwealth v., 134 Mass. 
 
 211 405 
 
 Eaton v., 11 Allen 500 86, 95, 139 
 Hickey v., 14 Allen 429 265, 284 
 Treats, 131 Mass. 371, 3 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 423 281 
 Cooke v., 133 Mass. 185 149 
 
 Lowell v., 23 Pick. 24 127 
 
 Favor v., 114 Mass. 350 152 
 
 Lovejoy v., 125 Mass. 79 308 
 Yeatou v., 135 Mass. 418, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 253 346 
 Woburn v., 109 Mass. 283 412 
 B. & M. E. E., Mayo v., 104 Mass. 
 
 137 436 
 
 Gordon v., 58 N. H. 396 421 
 
 Beaver v., 14 Cray 466 211, 368 
 Miller v., 1 28 Mass. 8, 1 Am. 
 
 & Eng. P. E. Cas. 141 366 
 
 Smith v., 120 Mass. 490 65 
 
 E. & M. E. E., Hoben v., 20 
 
 Iowa 562 374 
 
 Quimby v., 69 Me. 340 253 
 
 Eathburn v., 16 Neb. 441, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 137 150 
 Walker v., 128 Mass. 8, 1 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 141 306, 366 
 Bradley v., 2 Cush. 539 162 
 
 Brooks v., 135 Mass. 21, 16 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 345 
 
 262, 263, 266 
 Burnett v., 16 Neb. 332, 19 
 
 Am.&Eng.E.R.Cas.25 54,193 
 Johnson v., 125 Mass. 75 214, 283 
 Commonwealth v., 129 Mass. 
 500, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 457 214 
 
 Wright v., 129 Mass. 440, 2 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 121 
 
 169, 190 
 v. Eose, 11 Neb. 177, 1 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 253 250, 251 
 McKimble v., 139 Mass. 542, 
 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 213 405 
 
 B. & N. E. E., Sheridan v., 36 N. 
 
 Y. 39 290, 292 
 
 B. & N. C. Ey., Conway v., 9 Irish 
 
 C. L. 498 368 
 
 B. & N. W. Ey., McAllister v., 64 
 Iowa 395, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 108 191, 196 
 
 v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277 114, 471 
 v. Depew,40OhioSt.l21, 12 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 64 
 
 191, 224 
 Bannon v., 24 Md. 108 193 
 
 Lewis v., 38 Md. 588 283 
 
 v. State, 33 Md. 542 
 
 54, 212, 372,376 
 v. State, 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 202 
 
 287, 440, 490, 493 
 Washington v., 17 W. Va. 
 190, 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 749 6 
 
 v. State, 29 Md. 252, Id. 420 246 
 State v., 24 Md. 84 
 
 36, 54, 158, 233, 493 
 v. School District, 96 Penna. 
 65, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 166 30, 31, 34 
 
 v. State, 60 Md. 449, 12 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 149 257, 283 
 v. Schwindling, 12 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases 349, 101 
 Penna. St. 258 177, 190 
 
 v. State, 62 Md. 479, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 83 
 
 197, 416, 434
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXV 
 
 B. &N.W. Ry. v. Bregy, 32 Md. 
 
 333 ' 502 
 
 Kean v., 61 Md. 154, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 321 
 
 54, 74, 174 
 Mastin v., 14 W. Va. 180 205 
 Fowler v., 18 W. Va. 579, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480 180 
 Randall v., 109 U, S. 478, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243 
 160, 246, 306, 344, 355, 356, 367 
 454 
 r.Hobbs, Md. , 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 337 169 
 v. Strieker, 51 Md. 47 302, 345 
 v. Wightman, 29 Grat. 431 491 
 Wonder v., 32 Md. 411 301 
 
 v. Whittington, 30 Grat. 805 
 
 374, 378 
 v. Worthington, 21 Md. 275 
 
 233, 240 
 v. State, 41 Md. 268 318, 373, 491 
 v. Noell, 32 Grat. 394 493 
 
 B. & P. R. R., District of Colum- 
 bia v. 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 179 412 
 
 v. Jones, 95 U. S. 439 
 
 6, 47, 283, 374 
 Pabst v., 2 McArthur 42 262, 470 
 B. & R. B. R. R., Smedis v., 88 
 N. Y., 13 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 445 157, 167, 175 
 
 B. & S. A. R. R., Putnam v., 55 
 
 N. Y. 108 280 
 
 B. & S. C. Ry., Fordbam v., L. R. 
 
 3 C. P. 368, 4 Id. 619 277 
 
 B. & S. Gaslight Co., Smith v., 1 
 Ad. & El. 526, 28 E. C. L. 
 
 99 112 
 B. & S. L. R. R., Brown v., 22 N.' 
 
 Y. 191 42 
 
 B. & W. R. R., Bancroft v., 97 
 
 Mass. 275 259 
 
 Caswell v., 98 Mass. 194 15, 62, 240 
 Farwell v., 4 Mete. 49, 1 Redf. 
 Am. Ry. Cas. 395 
 
 350,351,356, 359,363,366 
 King »., 9 Gush. 112 301,338,366 
 O'Brien v., 15 Gray 20 215 
 
 Schopman v., 9 Cush. 24 217, 233 
 B. & O. C. R. R. v. Rowan, 104 
 Ind. 88, 23 Am. & Eng.R. 
 R. Cas. 390 302, 345 
 
 Cagney v. II. & St. J. R. R., 69 ' 
 
 Mo. 416 301 
 
 Caldwell v. Brown, 53 Penna. St. 
 
 453 323, 356, 493 
 
 v. N.J. S. N. Co., 47 N. Y. 290 235 
 P. A. & M. Ry. v., 74 Penna. 
 St. 421 95, 209 
 
 PAGK 
 
 88 
 65 
 
 280 
 
 390 
 60 
 
 377 
 
 473 
 
 396 
 
 87 
 
 134 
 177 
 
 Cannon, Rowland v., 35 Ga. 105 
 Wallace v., 38 Ga. 199 
 v. M. G. W. Ry., 6 Irish C. 
 L. 199 
 Campbell, Spencer v., 9 W. & S. 
 32 
 v. A. R. R., 53 Ga. 4o8 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Rf., 45 
 
 Iowa 76 
 Nebraska City v., 2 Black. 
 (S. C.) 590 
 Cantrell, St. L., I. M. & S. R. R. 
 v., 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. K. Cas. 198 
 
 254, 264, 286, 287, 468, 474 
 Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281 136 
 Carden, Schreger v., 11 C. B. 851 
 Carlisle v. Sheldon, 38 Vt. 440 
 Carpenter v. B. & A. R. R., 97 N. 
 Y. 494, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 331 102, 255 
 
 v. Mining Co., 65 N. Y. 43 
 Carroll, Maener v., 46 Md. 212 
 v. S. I. R. R., 58 N. Y. 126 
 
 65, 235 
 D. & H. C. Co. v., 89 Penna. 
 
 St. 374 320, 321, 323 
 
 N. & C. R. R. v., 6 Heisk. 
 
 (Tenn.) 347 60, 370 
 
 v. P. R. R., 12 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 348 
 
 169, 172, 260 
 v. M. V. R. R., 13 Minn. 30 372 
 Carp ue v. L. & B. Ry., 5 Q. B. 
 
 747, 48 E. C. L. 274, 439 
 
 Carson v. Godley, 26 Penna. St. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Carter v. C. & G. R. R., 19 
 Shand (S. C) 20, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 414 
 
 191, 454 
 v. L., N. A. & C. R. R , 98 
 Ind. 522, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 360 109, 189 
 
 Cartwright v. C & G. T. Ry., 52 
 Mich. 606, 16 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 321 
 Caruth, M. C. R. R. v., 51 Miss. 
 
 77 
 Case, L. C. & L. R. R. v., 9 Bush 
 
 728 86, 486 
 
 v. C, R. I. & P. R., 64 Iowa 
 762, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 142 
 Casey v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 
 
 78 N. Y. 518 
 Caswell v. Worth, 5 E1.& Bl. 849, 
 85 E. C. L. 
 v. B. & W. R. R., 98 Mass. 
 194 15, 62, 240 
 
 200 
 
 266 
 469 
 
 442 
 416 
 
 36
 
 XXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Catlin v. Hills, 8 C. B. 123, 65 E. 
 
 C. L. 80, 86 
 
 Cauley v. P., C & St. L. E. B., 95 
 ' Penna. St. 398, 98 Id. 498 
 76, 199,115, 188, 189, 190, 
 
 196, 446 
 Caulkins, Erie v., 85 Penna. St. 
 
 247 122, 125 
 
 Capper v. L. E. & St. L. B. B., 
 103 Ind. 305, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. E. B. Cas. 525 367, 381 
 Cassidy v. M C. B. E , 76 Me. 
 488, 17 Am. & Eng. E. B. 
 Cas. 519 366, 381 
 
 Carleton v. F. I. Co., 99 Mass. 
 
 216 201 
 
 Cameron, Fries v., 4 Bicliardson 
 
 228 201 
 
 Cavens, L. C. & L. E. B. v., 9 
 
 Bush (Ky.) 559 323 
 
 Carlin v. C, B. I. & P. Ey., 37 
 
 Iowa 316 170 
 
 Campan v. M. S. E. E., 35 Mich. 
 
 468 190 
 
 Carey v. B. By., 1 Cush. 475 397 
 
 C, B. & Q. B. B. v. George, 19 
 
 111. 510 275, 439 
 
 v. Hazzaid, 26 111. 373 288, 292 
 v.Iowa, 94 U.S. 161 4, 5 
 
 Dougherty v., 86 111. 467 
 
 265, 427 
 Lalor v., 52 111. 401 350 
 
 Morris v., 45 Iowa 29 
 
 191,196, 469 
 v. Sykes, 96 111. 162, 2 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 254 
 
 287, 238 
 v. Warner, 108 111. 538, 18 
 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 100 
 
 307, 378, 445 
 v. Van Patten, 74 111. 91 60 
 
 v. Dickson, 67 111. 122 411 
 
 v. Dickson, 63 111. 151, 7 Am. 
 
 By. Bep. 45 114 
 
 v. Gregory, 58 111. 272 308 
 
 v. Johnson, 103 111. 512, 8 
 Am. & Eng. B. B. Cas. 
 225 425, 432 
 
 v. Stumpfs, 55 111. 367 427 
 
 .v. Stumps, 69 111. 409 73 
 
 Sevmour v., 3 Biss. 43 139, 254 
 Gould v., 66 Iowa 590, 22 
 Am. & Eng. B. B. Cas. 
 289 308 
 
 Hazzard v., 1 Biss. 503 288 
 
 v. Avery, 109 111. 314, 17 
 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 
 649 313, 329 
 
 Clark v., 92 111. 43 342 
 
 v. Dickson, 88 111. 431 151, 427 
 
 C, B. & Q. E. E. v. Dunn, 52 111. 
 
 45 J 151 
 
 v. Dougherty, 110111.521,19 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 292 162 
 v. Dewey, 26 111. 255 260, 283 
 v. Lee, 60 111. 501 420 
 
 C. B. U. P. By., McQueen v., 30 
 Kans. 689, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 E. B. Cas. 226 211, 307 
 
 v. Henigh, 23 Kans. 347 73 
 
 C. B. E. E. v. Phillippi, 20 Kans. 
 
 12 160 
 
 C, C, C. & I. E. E., Lary v., 78 
 Ind. 323, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas 498 177, 190 
 
 v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542, 8 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 377 
 
 240, 275, 276, 439 
 v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461, 
 8 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 
 371 136, 240, 243, 276, 440 
 Kerwhacker v., 3 Ohio St. 172 
 
 54,65 
 C. C. E. E. v. Ogden, 3 Colo. 499 
 
 329, 379 
 v. Martin, 7 Colo. , 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. B. E. Cas. 592 367 
 
 v. Holmes, 5 Colo. 197, 8 Am. 
 
 &Eng. E. B. Cas. 410 54 
 
 Ward v., 19 Shand (S. C.) 
 521, 16 Am & Eng. E. B. 
 Cas. 356 274 
 
 Hinckley v., 120 Mass. 262, 436 
 v. McMahon, 103 111. 485, 8 
 Am. & Eng. B. B. Cas. 68 
 
 111,423 
 v. Mumford, 97 111. 560, 3 
 Am.& Eng. B. B. Cas. 312 
 
 274, 291 
 Summers v., 34 La. An. 139 285 
 Fitts v., 59 Wise. 325, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. B. B. Cas. 462 454 
 C. C. S. N. Co., Yeomans v., 44 
 
 Cal. 71 216 
 
 C, C. & C. E. E. v. Terry, 8 Ohio 
 
 St. 570 75, 86 
 
 v. Mara, 26 Ohio St. 185 418 
 
 Bartram v., 11 Ohio St. 457 251 
 v. Keary, 3 Ohio St. 254 
 
 324, 326, 370 
 O, C. & I. C. By. v. Manson, 30 
 
 Ohio St. 451 287 
 
 v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37 109,215,292 
 v. Troesch, 68 111. 545 307, 434 
 C, D. & M. By., Walter v., 39 
 
 Iowa 33 69 
 
 Chaffee v. E. & L. B. B., 104 
 
 Mass. 108 173, 257 
 
 Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Ma- 
 son 242 114
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXV11 
 
 Chamberlain v. M. & M. E. E., 
 
 11 Wise. 238 216, 355, 369 
 Chambers. I. C. E. E. v., 71 111. 
 
 519 265 
 
 Clark v., 3 Q. B. D. 327 
 
 39, 95, 148, 187 
 Chandler, Chamberlain v., 3 Ma- 
 son 242 114 
 Chanslor, Lemon v., 6S Mo. 340 
 
 208, 235 
 Chaplin, Greenland v., 5 Ex. 243 
 
 12,82 
 Tucker v., 2 C. & K. N. P. 
 730, 61 E. C. L. 87 
 
 Chapman v. Bothwell, 4 Jur. N. 
 
 S. 1181 489 
 
 v. E. Ev., 55 N. Y. 579 314 
 
 v. N. H". E.E., 19N.Y. 341 86 
 
 v. Bothwell, E. Bl. & E. 168, 
 
 96 E. C. L. 200 
 
 Charles v. Taylor, 3 C. P. D. 
 
 492 356 
 
 Chase v. M. C. E. E., 77 Me. 62, 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 356 175, 444 
 
 Chenewith, L. & B. E. E. v., 52 
 
 Penna. St. 382 201,252,501 
 Chicago v. Major, 18 111. 349 489 
 
 v. Bobbins, 2 Black 418 127 
 
 Bobbins v., 4 Wall. 657 127,412 
 Scammon v., 25 111. 424 122 
 
 v. Schollen, 75 111. 468 482, 489 
 Child v. Hearn, L. E. 9 Ex. 176 
 
 81,86 
 Chilton v. L. & C. By., 16 M. & 
 
 W. 212 99, 110 
 
 Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79 
 
 232 439 
 Churchill v. Holt, 127 Mass. 165' 394 
 C, H. & I. E. E. v. Eaton, 94 
 Ind. 474, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. K. Cas. 254 25, 467 
 
 Chant v. S. E. Ev., Weekly Notes 
 
 (Eng.) for 1866, p. 134 490 
 Charlton, t. & P. Ey. v., 60 Tex. 
 397, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 350 309, 338, 342 
 
 Chickering, Marsh v., 101 N. Y. 
 
 396, 400 301, 373 
 
 C. H. & II. Ev. v. Moore, 59 Tex. 
 64, 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas 745 91 
 
 City of Dublin Steam Packet Co., 
 Fenton v., 8 A. & E. 835, 
 35 E. C. L. 103 
 
 C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 
 
 157, 158, 166, 169 
 C. I. Ey., Beatty v., 58 Iowa 242, 
 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 210 148, 152, 155 
 
 C, I. By., Ferguson v., 58 Iowa 
 293, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 614 374, 376 
 
 Ford v., Iowa , 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. It. E. Cas. 599 434 
 Kellow v., Iowa , 21 
 Am. & Eng, E. E. Cas. 
 485 276 
 
 Sloan v., 62 Iowa 728, 11 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 145 135 
 
 C, I. & B. E. E., Hagenlocker v., 
 
 99 N. Y. 136 417 
 
 Clark v. Chambers, 3 Q. B. D. 
 
 327 39, 95, 148, 187 
 
 v. C, B. & Q. E. E., 92 111. 
 
 43 342 
 
 v. Frv. 8 Ohio St. 358 122, 127 
 Holmes v., 6 H. & N. 349, 7 
 
 H. &N. 937 300,329, 350,382 
 T. H. & I. E. E. v., 73 Ind. 
 168, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 84 159, 169 
 
 McCully v., 40 Penna. St. 
 
 399, 406 447, 448 
 
 Kieto v., 1 Clif. 145 114 
 
 v. P. & E. E. E., 5 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 119 190, 196, 434 
 
 v. 8th Ave. E. E., 36 N. Y. 
 
 135 290 
 
 v. E. & D. E. E., 78 Va. 709, 
 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 78 302, 345 
 
 v. St. P. & S. C. E. E., 28 
 Minn. 128, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 E. R. Cas. 240 345 
 
 C & E. I. Ey. v., 108 111. 
 113,15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 261 346 
 
 v. B. & A. E. E., 128 Mass. 
 1, 1 Am. & Eng. B. E. 
 Cas. 134 375 
 
 C. L. E. E., Davis v., 10 How. 
 
 Pr. 300 213 
 
 Clayards v. Dethick, 12 Q. B. 
 439, 64 E. C. L. 
 
 16, 17, 19, 54, 63 
 Clay St. Hill Co., Tompkins r.,9 
 Cal. , 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 144 86, 394 
 
 Clayton, Deane v., 7 Taunt. 489, 
 
 2 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Clemmons, H. & T. C. E. E. v., 
 55 Tex. 88, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 396 286 
 
 Cleveland v. Speyer, 16 C. B. N. 
 
 S. 399, 111 E. C. L. 371 
 
 v. N. J. S. Co., 68 N. Y. 306 
 
 204, 213
 
 xxvm 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Cliff v. M. Ry., L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 258 165, 166 
 
 Clough. Williams v., 3 H. & N. 
 
 258 300, 344 
 
 Packet Co. v., 20 Wall. 529 
 
 416, 509 
 Clussman v. L. I. R. E., 73 N. Y. 
 
 606 214, 253 
 
 Cleghorn v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. 
 
 E., 56 N. Y. 44 314 
 
 Clotworthv, H. & St. J. E. E. v., 
 
 80 Mo. 220, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 371 263, 264 
 
 C, L. & C. E. E., Thompson v., 
 
 54 Ind. 197 154 
 
 (X, M. & St. P. E. E., Abbett v., 
 
 30 Minn. 482 436, 454 
 
 Brown v., 54 Wise. 342, 3 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 444 25, 27, 292, 467 
 
 Foss v., 33 Minn. 392, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. R. Cas. 113 224 
 Gumz v., 52 Wise. 672, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 583 
 
 112, 383 
 Hoppe v., 61 Wise. 357, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 74 
 
 77, 197, 425 
 Kelly v., 53 Wise. 74, 5 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 469 344 
 Jenkins v ,41 Wise. 112 112, 209 
 Pool v., 53 Wise. 657, 56 Id. 
 
 227, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 332, 8 Id. 360 
 
 205, 210, 286, 305, 307, 376 
 v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377 
 
 324, 325, 326, 362, 369 
 Grethen v., U. S. C C. Dis- 
 trict of Minnesota, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 342 94, 192 
 Goldstein v., 46 Wise. 404 224 
 Holland v., 18 Fed. Rep. 243 375 
 Cunningham v., 17 Fed. Rep. 
 
 882, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 217 374, 376, 379 
 
 Bower v., 61 Wise. 457, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 301 169, 420 
 
 Louckst>., 31 Minn. 526, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 305 163, 169 
 
 Mantel v.. 33 Minn. 62, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 
 
 362 168 
 
 M. St. Ry. v., 33 Minn. 62, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 362 168 
 
 Schofield v., 114 U. S. 615, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 353 169, 172 
 
 C, M. & St. P. R. R., Townley v., 
 
 53 Wise. 626, 4 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 562 69, 179 
 Berg v., 50 Wise. 419, 2 Am 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 70 344 
 
 Cottrill v., 47 Wise. 634 379 
 
 Hogan v., 59 Wise. 139, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 439 
 
 74, 167, 454 
 Kelley v., 50 Wise. 381, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 65 378 
 Luebke v., 59 Wise. 127, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 183 347 
 
 Muster v., 61 Wise. 325, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 113 102, 256, 299, 318, 443 
 Phillips v., 64 Wise. 475, 23 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 453 323 
 
 Peschel v., 62 Wise. 338, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 545 323, 338, 368 
 
 Schaefert v., 62 Iowa 624, 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 696 171 
 
 Smith v., 42 Wise. 520 235, 345 
 Walsh v., 42 Wise. 23 25, 466 
 Robinson v., 60 Wise. 320, 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 391 373 
 
 Schultz v., 48 Wise. 375 330, 369 
 Thompson v., 18 Fed. Rep. 
 
 239 683 
 
 Kearns v., 66 Iowa 599, 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 287 308 
 
 Ditberner v., 47 Wise. 138 192 
 Cockle v. L. & S. E. Ry., L. R. 5 
 
 C. P. 457, 7 Id. 331 266, 267 
 Coates, B. C. R. & N. R. R., 62 
 
 Iowa 487, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 265 346, 431 
 
 Cobb, I. & St. L. R. R. v., 68 111. 
 
 53 471 
 
 Cockrell, Francis v., L. R. 5 Q. 
 
 B. 184, 501 200, 201, 237 
 
 Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raymond 
 
 918, 1 Sm. L. C 189 207, 231 
 Cole, Schall v., 107 Penna. St. 1 
 
 50, 301 
 Colegrove v. N. Y. & N. H. R. 
 
 R., 20 N. Y. 492, 6 Duer 
 
 382 86, 282, 287, 413 
 Coleman v. S. E. Ry., 4 H. & C. 
 
 699 277 
 
 v. Riches, 16 C. B. 104, 81 
 
 E. C L. 102 
 
 v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R., 106 
 
 Mass. 160 108
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Coleman v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 
 
 45 470 
 
 Colgan v. W. P. P- Ry., 4 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 400 71 
 
 Collarn, O. & M. K. K. v., 73 rnd. 
 
 261, 5 Am. & Eng. K. R. 
 
 314, 315, 316, 330, 469, 470 
 Colder, Laing v., 8 Penna. St. 479 
 
 233, 473, 501 
 Collett v. L. & N. W. Ry., 16 Q. 
 
 B. 984, 71 E. C. L. 215 
 Collins, Harrison v., 86 Penna. St. 
 
 153 126 
 
 B. & E. Ry. v., 7 H. L. 194 137 
 v. E. T. V. & G. R. R., 9 
 
 Heisk. (Tenn.) 841 493 
 
 L. & N. Ry. v., 2 Duvall 114 
 
 50, 327, 355, 370 
 v. Middle Level Commrs., 
 
 L. R. 4 C. P. 279 39, 95 
 
 P. F. W. & C. R. R. v., 87 
 
 Penna. St. 405 190 
 
 v. St. P. & S. C. R. R., 30 
 Minn. 31, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 150 368 
 
 v. A. & S. R. R., 12 Barb. 492 282 
 Coleman, Jencks v., 2 Sumner 
 
 221 251 
 
 M. C. R. R. v., 28 Mich. 440 
 
 260, 264, 416 
 Collis v. Selden, L. R. 3 C. P. 
 
 495 177 
 
 Colver, Griffen v., 16 N. Y. 489 460 
 Cone v. P., L. & W. R. R., 81 N. 
 Y. 207, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 57 306, 337 
 
 Robinson v., 22 Vt. 213 91 
 
 Connelly v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 R, 88 N. Y. 346, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R, Cas. 459 170 
 
 Connell, H. M. & F. Ry. v., 88 
 
 Penna. St. 520 188, 196 
 
 Condon, M. P. Ry. v., 78 Mo. 567, 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 563 330, 369 
 
 Conway v. B. & N. C. Ry., 9 Irish 
 
 C. L. 498 368 
 Commonwealth, Pierce v., 14 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 97 4 
 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 129 Mass. 
 
 500, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 457 214 
 
 P. & E. R. R. v., 80 Ky. 147, 
 
 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 318 155 
 
 v. Power, 7 Mete. 596 
 v. Smith, 10 Allen 448 134 
 
 200 
 
 495 
 65 
 
 149 
 
 338 
 
 158 
 
 146 
 
 501 
 
 Commonwealth v. Vt. C. R. R., 
 
 108 Mass. 7 216 
 
 Condon v. G., S. & W. Ry., 16 
 
 Irish C. L. 415 489 
 
 Connor v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 59 
 
 Mo. 285 316 
 
 Conroy, T., W. & W. R. R. v., 68 
 
 111. 560 240, 303, 305 
 
 v. Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35 382 
 
 Conservators of the Thames, 
 
 Winch v., L. R. 9 C. P. 
 
 Cook, C. Ry. of N. J. v., 1 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 319 
 
 Mohney v., 26 Penna. St. 342 
 
 Cooke v. B. & L. R. R., 133 Mass. 
 
 185 
 Coombs r. N. B. Cordage Co., 102 
 
 Mass. 522 
 Coon v. S. & N. R. R., 5 N. Y. 
 
 492 323, 356, 368 
 
 P. R. R. v., 17 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 137 
 Coons, M. N. Co. v., 6 W. & S. 
 
 101 
 Cooper, Berry v., 28 Ga. 543 
 
 v. Butler, 103 Penna. St. 412, 
 14 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 278 373, 274 
 
 v. C. R. R., 44 Iowa 134 
 
 300, 301,316,418 
 v. E. T. Co., 75N.Y. 116 413 
 v. M. & P. R. R., 23 Wise. 
 
 668 315 
 
 v. P., C. & St. L. R. R, 24 
 W. Va. 37, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 564, note 330, 369 
 L. & N. R. R. v., Ky. 
 
 6 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 5 193 
 Copper v L., E. & St. L. Ry., 
 
 Ind. , 22 Am. & *Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 277 323, 368 
 
 Coolbroth v. M. C. R. R., 77 Me. 
 165, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 599 347 
 
 Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 
 
 98 E. C.L. 6,112,434 
 
 C. O. R. R., Timmon v., 6 Ohio 
 
 St. 105 376 
 
 Corson v. M. C. R. R., 76 Me. 
 244, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 634 315 
 
 Coyle, II. R. R. v., 55 Penna. St. 
 
 396 168, 416 
 
 Cox, Pearson v., 2 C. P. D. 369 122 
 
 I. C. R, R. v., 21 111. 20 368 
 
 Cowles v. R. & D. R. R., 84 N. 
 
 C. 309, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 90 303, 323, 324, 370
 
 XXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Cogswell v. O. & C. E. E., 6 Ore- 
 gon 417 75 
 Conlon u. E. R. E., 135 Mass. 
 
 195, 1") Am. &Eng. E. E. 
 
 ( 'as. 99 151 
 
 Conlan, Penna. Co. v., 101 111. 93, 
 
 ti Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 243 364, 426 
 
 Copeland, M. & C. E. E. v., 61 
 
 Ala. 376 266, 2S3 
 
 Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S. 556, 
 
 93 E. C. L. 200 
 
 Corey v. N. P. By., 32 Minn. 457, 
 
 19 Am. &Eng. E. B. Cas. 
 
 352 151 
 
 Corcoran v. B. & A. E. E., 133 
 
 Mass. 507 299, 434, 442, 444 
 Cordell v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 
 
 64 N.Y. 535, 70 Id. 119, 
 
 75 Id. 330 160, 171, 434 
 
 Copley v. N. H. & N. Co., 136 
 
 Mass. 6, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 B. E. Cas. 373 173 
 
 Costar, Harris v., 1 C. & P. 636, 
 
 HE. C. L. 232 
 
 Costello v. S. E. E. B., 65 Barb. 
 
 92 240 
 
 Coucb v. Steel, 3 E. & B. 402, 77 
 
 E. C. L. 40 
 
 Coultas, P., B. I. & St. L. E. E. 
 
 v., 67 111. 398 284 
 
 Coupland v. Hardingham, 3 
 
 Camp. 398 148 
 
 Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 
 
 517 320 
 
 Cornman v. E. C. By., 4 H. & N. 
 
 78 25, 255, 257 
 
 Cottrell ». O, M. & St. P. By., 47 
 
 Wise. 634 379 
 
 Corlis v. W., ST. & E. E. E., 
 
 N. H. , 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. B. Cas. 208 406 
 
 Conway, P., W. & B. E. E. v., 17 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 429 496 
 
 Conn. Mut Life Ins. Co. v. N. Y. 
 
 & N. H. E. E., 25 Conn. 
 
 265 399 
 
 Oosgrove v. N. Y. C. & H. E. B. 
 
 B., 87 N. Y. 88, 6 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 35 160, 161 
 (Jollier, M. P. By. v., 62 Tex. 
 
 318, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 281 276 
 
 Commonwealth v. B. & L. B. B., 
 
 134 Mass. 211 405 
 
 C. P. I. Co., Larmore v., 101 N. 
 
 Y. 391 177 
 
 C, P. & A. B. B. v. Curran, 19 
 
 Ohio St. 1 204, 502 
 
 C. P. Mfg. Co. v. Ballou, 71 111. 
 
 418 342 
 
 C, P., N. & E. E. E., Twomley 
 
 v., 69 N. Y. 158 62 
 
 C. P. E. E., MeQuilken v., 64 Cal. 
 
 463, 16 Am. & Eng. B. E. 
 
 Cas. 353 2o9 
 
 McQuilkin v., 50 Cal. 7 353 
 
 Kline v., 37 Cal. 400, 587 109 
 Durkee v., 56 Cal. 388 492 
 
 Sweeny v., 57 Cal. 15, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. K. E. Cas. 151 343, 344 
 Nekrbas v., 62 Cal. 320, 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 370 166 
 
 Bunting v., 14 Nev. 351, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 282 427 
 
 C. P. By. v. Foxlev, 107 Penna. 
 
 St. 537 454 
 
 v. Swayne, 13 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 41 440 
 
 Cragin v. N. Y. C. E. E, 51 N. 
 
 Y. 64 502 
 
 Craker v. C. & N. W. By., 36 
 
 Wise. 657 114 
 
 C, E. I. & P. E. B. v. Bell, 70 
 
 111. 102 74, 171 
 
 McCorkle v., 61 Iowa 5">5, 
 
 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 156 264, 265 
 
 McCarthy v., 18 Kans. 45 409 
 v. Huflman, 78 Mo. 50, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 
 
 625 314, 315, 318 
 
 Morris v., 65 Iowa 727, 19 
 
 Am.&Eng.E.B.Cas. 180 409 
 v. Doyle, 18 Kans. 58 314 
 
 Artz v., 34 Iowa 153 170 
 
 Beems v., 58 Iowa 150, 10 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 658 377 
 
 Brann v., 53 Iowa 595 
 
 303, 330, 369 
 Deppe v., 36 Iowa 52 383 
 
 Farley v., 42 Iowa 234, 56 
 
 Id. 337, 2 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 108 155, 375 
 
 Kroy v., 32 Iowa 357 373 
 
 Lindsey v., 64 Iowa 407, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 179 264 
 
 Perigo v., 52 Iowa 276 373 
 
 v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697 
 
 168, 169, 172 
 v. Lewis, 109 111. 120, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 224 508 
 
 Schroeder v., 47 Iowa 375, 
 
 41 Id. 344 383, 424
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 C, R. I. & P. R. R., Simonson v., 
 
 49 Iowa 19 431 
 
 Frandsen v., 36 Iowa 372 383 
 Hart v., 56 Iowa 166 161 
 
 Lombard v., 47 Iowa 494 383 
 Murphy v., 45 Iowa 661 436 
 
 Case v., 64 Iowa 762, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. K. R. Cas. 142 442 
 Baldwin v., 50 Iowa 680 309 
 
 Mever v., 57 Iowa 555, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. K. R. Cas. 527 302 
 Mayes v., 63 Iowa 562, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 527 306 
 Marron v., 59 Iowa 423, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 177 109, 115 
 
 Dunleavy v., Iowa , 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 542 112 
 
 Benton v., 55 Iowa 496 109 
 Bryant v., 63 Iowa 464, 16 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 335 114 
 
 Baird v., 55 Iowa 121, 13 N. 
 
 W. Rep. 731, 8 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 128; 61 
 
 Iowa 359, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 75 305 
 
 Campbell v., 45 Iowa 76 377 
 
 Connor v., 59 Mo. 285 316 
 
 Hatfield v., 61 Iowa 434, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 153 48 
 
 Houser v., 60 Iowa 230, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 501 306 
 
 Johnson v., 58 Iowa 348, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 206 109, 115 
 
 Koontz v., 65 Iowa 224, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 85 305, 345 
 
 Goodwin v., 75 Mo. 73, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 460 158 
 
 O'Keefe v., 32 Iowa 467 60 
 
 Pringle v., 64 Iowa 613, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 91 381, 417 
 
 Payne v., 39 Iowa 523 86 
 
 Pence v, 63 Iowa 746, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 366 168, 172 
 
 Rasmusson v., 65 Iowa 236, 
 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 54 349 
 
 Romick v., 62 Iowa 627, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 288 376 
 
 Carlin v., 337 Iowa 316 170 
 
 C, R. I. & P. R. R. v. Dignan, 56 
 
 111. 487 166 
 
 Funston v., 61 Iowa 452, 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 640 166, 169 
 
 Walters v., 41 Iowa 71 77, 195 
 Laverenz v., 56 Iowa 689, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 274 169, 170 
 
 Tuttle v., 42 Iowa 518 411,481 
 Tuttle v., 48 Iowa 236 275, 439 
 MeAra v., 52 111. 296 275 
 
 Allender v., 43 Iowa 276 288 
 Martensen v., 60 Iowa 705, 
 
 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 233 376 
 
 Whitsett v., Iowa , 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 336 377 
 
 C. R. R., Steele v., 43 Iowa 
 
 109 375 
 
 v. Sears, 61 Ga. 279 379 
 
 Benton v., 42 Iowa 192 169 
 
 v. Feller, 84 Penna. St. 226 
 
 166, 169, 454 
 Harty v., 42 N. Y. 468 1G0 
 
 Lindsay v., 46 Ga. 447 417 
 
 Moore v., 47 Iowa 688 169 
 
 Perkins v., 44 N. H. 223 417 
 Thompson v., 54 Ga. 509 60 
 
 v. Dixon, 42 Ga. 327 283 
 
 v. Brinson, 70 Ga. 207, 64 Id. 
 
 475, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 42 190, 192, 197, 443 
 
 v. Letcher, 69 Ala. 106, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 115 264, 265 
 
 Cooper v., 44 Iowa 134 
 
 300, 301, 316, 418 
 Berry v., 40 Iowa 564 470 
 
 v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461, 66 Id. 
 
 746 213, 261, 264 
 
 Murch v., 29 N. H. 9 
 
 138, 251, 292 
 Davis v., 60 Ga. 329 474 
 
 v. Mitchell, 63 Ga. 177, 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 145 305, 383 
 
 v. Kennev, 58 Ga. 485, 64 
 
 Id. 100, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 155 307 
 
 Kenney v., 61 Ga. 590 307 
 
 v. Armstrong, 49 Penna. St. 
 
 193, 52 Id. 282 
 
 56, 60, 221, 227, 372, 491 
 Black v., 10 La. An. 38 233 
 
 Kinney v., 32 K J. L. 407 502 
 MacDougall v., 63 Cal. 431, 
 
 12 Am. & Eng.R. R.Cas. 
 143 436
 
 XXX11 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 C. R. R. v. Roach, 64 Ga. 635, 8 
 Am. & Eug. R. R. Cas. 79 
 
 15, 62, 376, 491 
 v.VanHorn, 38 N. J. L. 133 
 
 262, 266 
 v. Richards, 62 Ga. 306 431 
 
 Hulsencamp v., 37 Mo. 537 54 
 Williams v.. 43 Iowa 396 
 
 302, 303, 374, 376 
 York v., 3 Wall. 113 501 
 
 v. Sears, 66 Ga. 409 471 
 
 v. Cook, 1 Weeklv Notes of 
 
 Cases (Penna.)"319 495 
 
 Demuckt!., 103 U. S. Ill, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 309 409 
 
 Kinney a., 34 N. J. L. 513 
 
 208, 505 
 McNaughton v., 19 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Ca. 271 357 
 
 Hard v., 32 Vt. 473 366 
 
 C. R. R. R., Randall v., 132 
 
 Mass. 269 169 
 
 Riley v., 135 Mass. 292, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 181 444 
 
 Lawless v., 136 Mass. 1, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 96 307. 329, 337, 369, 380 
 
 Allender v., 37 Iowa 264 
 
 213, 480 
 Crafter v. Metropolitan Ry., L. 
 
 R. 1 C. P. 300 258 
 
 Crassweller, Mitchell v., 13 C. B. 
 
 237, 76 E. C. L. 102, 104 
 
 Crater v. Bininger, 33 N. J. L. 
 
 512 460 
 
 Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Penna. St. 
 139 
 47, 56, 209, 250, 252, 287, 445 
 v. Fisher, 9 Ex. 472 470 
 
 Cregin v. B. C. R. R., 83 N. Y. 
 
 595 398, 481 
 
 Cremer v. Portland, 36 Wise. 92 47 
 Crickett, McManus v., 1 East 
 
 107 108, 112 
 
 Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 N. Y. 516 328 
 Crissey v. H. M. & F. Ry., 75 
 
 Penna. St. 83 68, 454 
 
 Crocheron v. N. S. S. I. Ferry, 56 
 
 N. Y. 656 258 
 
 Crocker, Kinsey v., 18 Wise. 74 163 
 Croft v. Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590, 
 
 6E. C. L. 112, 113 
 
 Crook, S. Ex. Co. v., 44 Ala. 468 501 
 Crossan, Murphy v., 98 Penna. 
 
 St. 495 300 
 
 Crowley v. B. C. R. & N. R. R., 
 65 Iowa 658, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 56 318 
 
 Crump, Jordin v., 8 M. & W. 
 
 782 183 
 
 Crutchfield v. R. & D. R. R., 78 
 
 N. C. 300, 76 Id. 320 337, 374 
 Crofts v. Waterhouse, 3 Bing. 319, 
 
 HE. C. L. 447 
 
 C. S. B. Co., McGinnis v., 49 
 Mich. 466, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 135 
 
 301, 302, 306, 338 
 C, St. L. & N. O. R. R. v. Doyle, 
 60 Miss. 977, 8 Am. & 
 Eng R.R. Cas. 171 366 
 
 Perkins v., 60 Miss. 726, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 242 292 
 
 Peniston v., 34 La. An. 777 254 
 v. Trotter, 61 Miss. 417, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 159 259, 434 
 
 v. Trotter, 60 Miss. 442 443 
 
 v. Scnrr, 59 Miss. 456, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 351 263, 471 
 Moore v., 59 Miss. 243, 9 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 401 416 
 
 C, St. P. & M. R. R., Jewel v., 
 54 Wise. 610, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 379 265 
 
 C, St. P., M. & O. R. R, Ransom 
 v., 62 Wise. 178, I9Am.& 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 16 160 
 
 v. Lundstrom, 16 Neb. 254, 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 52S 370 
 
 Lawson v., 64 Wise. 447, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 249 205 
 
 C. St. Ry. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 30 54, 471, 472 
 
 C. S Co., Fairchild v., 13 Cal. 604 233 
 C. S. R. R., McKune v., Cal. 
 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 589, 21 Id. 539 322, 370, 377 
 Trask v., 63 Cal. 96, 11 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 192 365 
 McKinne v., Cal. , 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 539 323 
 
 C. S. N. Co., Leonard v., 84 N. 
 
 Y. 48 409 
 
 C. S. & M. S. R. R., Kinsley v., 
 
 125 Mass. 54 243 
 
 Cubitt, Rapson v., 9 M. & W. 
 
 710 102, 122 
 
 Culhane v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 60 N. Y. 133 427 
 
 Culp v. A. & N. R. R., 17 Kans. 
 
 475 151
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXX111 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 596 413 
 Cummings, G. T. Ry. v., 106 U. 
 
 S. 700 337 
 
 v. P., C. & St. L. Ey., 92 
 Penna. St. 82 229 
 
 Cunningham v. I. R. R., 51 Tex. 
 
 503 122 
 
 v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 17 
 Fed. Rep. 882, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R R. Cas. 217 
 
 374, 376, 379 
 Wilson v., 3 Cal. 241 158 
 
 Curran, C. P. & A. R. R. v., 19 
 
 Ohio St. 1 204, 502 
 
 Currie, Murray v., L. R. 6 C. P. 
 
 24 102, 122 
 
 Curtis v. D. & M. R. R., 23 Wise. 
 
 152, 27 Id. 158 263, 264 
 
 v. R. & S. R. R., 18 N. Y. 
 534 38, 275, 434, 439, 440, 
 
 473, 474 
 Mulligan v., 100 Mass. 512 70 
 Cutter, K."P. R. R. v., 19 Ivans. 
 
 83 469 
 
 C. V. R. R., Davis v., 55 Vt. 84, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 173 34, 303, 305, 330, 369 
 
 v. Mangans. 61 Md. 53, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 182 264 
 
 v. Hughes, 11 Penna. St. 
 
 140 148 
 
 v. Myers; 55 Penna. St. 288 
 
 212, 371 
 Mann v., 55 Vt. 484, 14 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 620 156 
 Ryan v., 23 Penna. St. 384 
 
 211, 356, 367 
 Johnson v., 56 Vt. 707 106 
 
 Merrill v., 54 Vt. 200, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 680 222, 372 
 
 O. W. D. Ry.. Mills v., 105 111. 
 63, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 128 263, 274 
 
 C. & A. R. R. v. Baldauf, 16 
 
 Penna. St. 67 501 
 
 Foster v., 84 111. 164 376 
 
 v. Bonifield, 104 111. 223, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 443 
 
 264, 364 
 v. Shannon, 43 111. 338 301, 482 
 Farnham v., 55 Penna. St. 62 501 
 v. Mock, 88 111. 87 434 
 
 v. Gretzner, 46111. 76 54, 427 
 v. Rush, 84 111 570 374, 376 
 
 v. Hoosey, 99 Penna. 492, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 254 284 
 v. Piatt, 89 111. 141 304, 307, 346 
 v. I'ondrum, 51 HI. 333, 54, 284 
 c 
 
 C. & A. R. R. v. Robinson, 106 
 111. 142, 13 Am.&Eng.R. 
 R. Cas. 620, 19 Id. 396 
 
 162, 427, 431 
 v. Wilson, 63 111. 167 256 
 
 v. Sullivan, 63 111. 293 314 
 
 v. Flagg, 43 111. 364 108, 251 
 People v., 67 111. 118 155 
 
 v. Garvey, 58 111. S3 166 
 
 v. McLaughlin, 47 111. 265 188 
 v. Hogarth, 38 111. 370 193 
 
 v. Randolph, 53 111. 510 288 
 
 v. Munroe, 85 111. 25 373 
 
 v. Becker, 76 111. 25 74 
 
 v. May, 108 111. 288, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R, Cas. 320 322 
 
 v. Keefe, 47 111. 108 367 
 
 v. Murphy, 53 111. 336 368 
 
 Gregory o, 58 111. 226 69,76 
 
 C. & B. R. R. v. Michie, 83 111. 
 
 427 188, 208, 209 
 
 C. & B. St. Ry., Brown v., 49 
 Mich. 153, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 385 112, 434 
 
 C. & E. Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 
 
 U. S. 645 145 
 
 C. & E. R. R. v. Flexman, 103 111. 
 546, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 354 114 
 
 C. & E. I. R.R. v. Geary, 110 111. 
 383, IS Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 606 317, 368, 373 
 
 C. & G E. R. R., Brignoli v , 4 
 
 Daly 182 240, 275, 439 
 
 C. & G. R. R., Carter v., 19 Shand 
 (S. C.) 20, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 414 191, 454 
 
 v. Fay, 16 111. 568 292 
 
 C. & G. E."R. R. v. Harney, 28 Ind. 
 
 28 342, 350 
 
 C. & G. T. Ry., Batterson v., 49 
 Mich.*184, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 123 301, 304, 305, 346 
 Cartwright v., 52 Mich. 606, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 321 266 
 
 Hilts v., 55 Mich. 437, 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 628 315 
 Mitchell v., 51 Mich. 236, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 
 
 262, 265, 270, 434, 443 
 Piquegno v., 52 Mich. 40, 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 210 344 
 
 C. & I. R. R. v. Russell, 91 111. 
 
 298 308 
 
 C. & I. C. R. R. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 
 
 408 103, 253, 262, 266, 467 
 C. & II. Ry., Grote v., 2 Ex. 251 
 
 217, 236, 237, 240
 
 X xxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 C. & N. W. E. R., Bass, v., 36 
 
 Wise. 450, 39 Id. 636, 42 
 
 Id. 654 113, 251, 416 
 
 Ballou v., 54 Wise. 257, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 480 307, 309, 346 
 
 Delie v., 51 Wise. 400 28, 473 
 v. Button, 63 111. 409 411 
 
 v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205 112, 350 
 Johnson v., 49 Wise. 529, 1 
 
 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 155 69 
 Ewen v., 38 Wise. 614 69, 76 
 Johnson v., 56 Wise. 274, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 47 1 69 
 Willoucrhby v., 37 Iowa 432 434 
 Woodward v., 23 Wise. 400 490 
 Sweet v., 45 111. 197 4S2 
 
 v. Miller, 46 Mich. 532, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 89 75, 169 
 Dewey v., 31 Iowa 373 88 
 
 Craker v., 36 Wise. 657 114 
 
 Dimick v., 80 111. 338 166 
 
 Hoye v., 62 Wise 666, 1 9 Am. 
 
 & Eng.R. R. Cas. 347 168, 454 
 Griswold v., Wise. , 23 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 463 220 
 
 Marqnetce v., 33 Iowa 562 109 
 McKinley v., 44 Iowa 314 114 
 Quaife v.', 48 Wise. 513 254 
 
 Davis v., 18 Wise. 175 
 
 263, 264, 265 
 Bessex v., 45 Wise. 477 308 
 
 Stetler, 49 Wise. 609 138 
 
 Davis v., 58 Wise. 646, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 424 179 
 v. Dimick, 96 111. 42, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 201 169 
 Duffy v., 32 Wise. 269 169 
 
 Fowler v., 61 Wise. 169, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas- 536 
 
 346, 369 
 Hunt v., 26 Iowa 363 356 
 
 v. Jackson, 55 111. 492 304, 329 
 Skellenger v., 61 Iowa 714, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206 346 
 v. Tavlor, 69 111. 461 319 
 
 Ryan v., 60 111. 171 330, 369 
 
 v. Whitton. 13 Wall. 270 409 
 W T edgwood v., 44 Wise. 44, 41 
 
 Id. 478 300, 307 
 
 v. Ward, 61 111. 130 345 
 
 v. Miranda, 108 111. 576, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 564 364 
 v. Moranda, 93 111 302 370 
 
 Bel air v., 43 Iowa 662 377 
 
 Haley v., 21 Iowa 15 26 
 
 Potter^., 21 Wise. 372, 22 Id. 
 
 615 60, 489 
 
 v. Fillmore, 57 111. 265 253, 416 
 
 C. & N. W. R. R., Allison v., 42 
 
 Iowa 274 29, 292, 421 
 
 Flanagan v., 45 Wise. 98, 50 
 
 LI. 462, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 150 302, 307, 345 
 
 Foley v., 48 Mich. 622, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 161 344 
 
 v. Donahue, 75 111. 106 
 
 318, 344, 373 
 Hartwig v., 49 Wise. 358, 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 65 253 
 
 Heine v., 58 Wise. 528 327, 366 
 Lockwood v., 51 Wise. 50, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 151 318, 374, 376 
 
 v. Smith, 46 Mich. 504, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 535 112, 188, 189, 434 
 
 McDonald v., 26 Iowa 124, 
 
 29 Id. 170 
 
 250, 251, 254, 273, 431 
 Naylor v., 53 Wise. 661, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 460 343, 349 
 
 Patten v., 32 Wise. 524, 36 
 
 Id. 413 254 
 
 Roberts v., 35 Wise. 679 
 
 156, 166 
 v. Scates, 90 111. 586 254 
 
 v. Sweeny, 52 111. 330 60, 173 
 Jucker v., 52 Wise. 150, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 41 28 
 Brabbitts v., 38 Wise. _!S9 356 
 Pease v., 61 Wise. 163, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 527 327, 338, 346, 366 
 
 C. & G. T. R. R., Rhodes v., 
 
 Mich. , 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 659 154, 427 
 
 Keyser v., Mich. , 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 91 
 
 196. 198 
 C. & G. E. R. R., Marshall v., 48 
 
 111. 475 418 
 
 C. & I., C. C. R. R. v. Arnold, 
 
 31 Ind. 174 306, 366 
 
 C. & M. R. R., Imhoff v., 20 
 
 Wise. 314 215, 263 
 
 C. & W. M. Ry., Maltby v., 52 
 
 Mich. 108,13 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 606 156 
 
 C. & R. I. R. R. v. McKean, 40 
 
 111. 218 173 
 
 C. & T, R. R., Simmons v., 110 
 
 111. 340, 18 Am. & Eng.R. 
 
 R. Cas. 50 349 
 
 Manville v., 11 Ohio St. 
 
 417 368
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 C & P. R. R. v. Rowan, 66 
 
 Penna. St. 393 174, 407, 
 
 436, 444, 492, 493, 495 
 v. The State, 44 Md. 283 306 
 
 v. Speer, 56 Penna. St. 325 146 
 v. Sutherland, 19 Ohio St. 151 74 
 Beard i\, 48 Vt. 101 254 
 
 Wakefield v., 37 Vt. 330 161 
 
 C. & P. S. Ferry Co. v. Monaghan, 
 
 10 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 46 282, 440 
 
 C. & R. I. R. R. v. Rung, 104 111. 
 
 641, 11 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 218 306 
 
 v. Clark, 108 111. 113, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R, Cas. 261 346 
 v. Whipple. 22 111. 105 133, 141 
 C. & St. L. R. R. v. Woosley, 85 
 
 111. 370 127 
 
 C. & St. P. R. R. v. McCarthy, 20 
 
 111. 385 133, 141 
 
 C. & S. Ry., Hughes v., 39 Ohio 
 
 St. 461, 15 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 100, and note 122, 125 
 C & Y. Ry., Burns v., 13 C. L. 
 
 (N. S.) 543 237 
 
 C. & X. R. R. v. Webb, 12 Ohio 
 
 St. 475 335, 343, 367 
 
 Daggett v. I. C. R. R., 34 Iowa 
 
 284 283, 374 
 
 Dahl v. M. C. Rv., 62 Wise. 652, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 121 76 
 
 Dahlberg v. M. St. Rv., 32 Minn. 
 
 404, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 202 285 
 
 Dale v. D. L. & W. R. R., 73 N. 
 
 Y. 468 284, 422 
 
 v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 
 
 63 Mo. 455 303, 375 
 
 Dalton v. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740 129 
 v. S. E. Ry., 4 C. B. N. S. 
 
 296, 93 E. C. L. 488, 493 
 
 Dallas v. G. C. & S. F. R. R., 61 
 
 Tex. 196, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 575 368 
 
 Daley v. N. & W. R. R., 26 Conn. 
 
 591 91 
 
 Dalyell v. Tyrer, El. Bl. & El. 
 
 890, 96 E. C. L., 28 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 25 103, 217 
 
 Damont v. N. O. & C. R. R., 9 
 
 La. An. 441 _ 63, 265 
 
 Daniel v. Metropolitan Ry., L. 
 
 R. 3 C P. 216, 591, 5 H. 
 
 L. 45 38, 129, 434, 442 
 
 Daniells v. Potter, 4 C. & P. 262, 
 
 19 E. C. L. 39, 95, 187 
 
 Dames, Indermaur v., L. R. 1 C. 
 
 P. 272, 2 id. 311 200 
 
 Davey v. L. & S. W. Rv., 11 Q. 
 
 B. D. 213, 12 Id.' 73 172, 436 
 Davidson v. Graham, 2 Ohio St. 
 
 131 501 
 
 G. H. & S. A. R. R. v., 61 
 Tex. 204, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 431 277 
 
 Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 
 
 546 51 
 
 Davis, Graham v., 4 Ohio St. 
 
 362 501 
 
 v. C. R. R.. 60 Ga. 329 474 
 
 v. C. L. R.R., 10 How. Pr. 
 
 300 213 
 
 v. C.V. R. R., 55 Vt. 84, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173 
 
 34, 303. 305, 330, 369 
 Morrison v., 20 Penna. St. 
 
 171 31 
 v. Duncan (U. S. C. C, So. 
 
 Dist. Miss.), 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 295 135, l3o 
 M. & W. R. R. v., 18 Ga. 679, 
 
 19 Id. 437 54 
 
 0.& M. R.R, v., 23 Ind. 553 135 
 v. O. & C. R. R., 8 Oregon 
 
 172 74, 420 
 v. C & N. W. Ry., 18 Wise. 
 
 175 263, 264, 26b 
 
 M. & W. R. R. v., 27 Ga. 
 
 113 60 
 
 v. N.Y. C. & H, R, R, R., 
 47N.Y. 400 169 
 
 Davis v. C. & N. W. Rv., 58 Wise. 
 646, 15 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 424 179 
 
 Daugherty, N. Y., L. E. & W. R. 
 R. v., 11 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 437 
 
 240. 246, 274, 439 
 Dawson v. M. Ry., 7 H.& N. 1037 
 
 274, 439 
 v. L. & N. R. R., Kv. , 
 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 134 261 
 
 Dana, Montclair v., 107 U. S. 162 4.54 
 Daily v. N. Y. & N. H, R. R., 32 
 
 Conn. 356 418 
 
 Darlington, Lax v., 5 Ex. D. 35, 
 
 18, 63, 200 
 Darrigan v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., 
 52 Conn. 285, 23 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 438 323 
 
 Day v. Highland St. Ry., 135 
 Mass. 113, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 150 65 
 
 v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520 251 
 
 v. T., C, S. & D. Ry., 42 
 Mich. 523, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 126 346, 356
 
 XXXVI 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Day v. Wood worth, 1 3 How. 371 47 1 
 Wilklns v., 12 Q. B. D. 110 490 
 v. B. C. R. R., 76 N. Y. 
 
 593 114 
 
 D. C S. Rv., Wood v., 52 Mich. 
 
 402," 19 Am. & Em*. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 129 115 
 
 Bowen v., 54 Mich. 496, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 131 150 
 
 Dean, Jar vis v., 3 Bing. 447, 11 
 
 E. C. L. 14S 
 
 Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489, 2 
 
 E. C. L. 1S3 
 
 Murphy v., 101 Mass. 466 436 
 Debevoise v. N. Y., L. E. & W. 
 
 R. R, 98 N. Y. 377 410 
 
 Decker, H. & B. T. R. R. v., 82 
 
 Penna. St. 119, 84 Id. 419 
 
 314, 330, 445, 491 
 De Forrest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 
 
 368 122 
 
 v. Jewett, 88 N.Y. 264, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 495 
 
 302, 305, 343, 345 
 Defries, Page v., 7 B. & S. 137 99 
 Degg v. Midland By., 1 II. & N. 
 
 773 212, 370, 371 
 
 De Graff v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 76 N. Y. 125 235, 307, 373 
 Delamatyr v. M. & P. M. C. R. 
 
 R , 24 Wise. 578 264 
 
 Delahuntv, G. H. & S. A. R. R. 
 
 v., 53 Tex. 206, 4 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 628 306 
 
 Delie v. C. & N. W. Ry., 51 Wise. 
 
 400 28, 473 
 
 Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind. 520 
 
 469, 470 
 Delanev, R., R. I. & St. L. R. R. 
 
 v., 82 111. 198 60, 490 
 
 Dennick v. C. R. R. of N. J., 103 
 
 U.S. Ill, 1 Am. & Ens. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 309 ~ 409 
 
 Demy v. Williams. 5 Allen 1 454 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 13 . Gray 
 
 481 31 
 
 Dengate v. Gardiner, 4 M. & W. 
 
 6 481 
 
 Deppe v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 36. 
 
 Iowa 52 383 
 
 Derrenbaeker v. L. V. R. R.. 87 
 
 N. Y. 636, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R R. Cas 624 306 
 
 Derbv, P. & R. R. R. v., 14 How. 
 
 469 99, 232, 233, 390 
 
 Derwort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 
 
 253 233 
 
 Desotelle, Lyons v., 124 Mass. 
 
 387 65 
 
 PAGh 
 
 Dethick, Clavards v., 12 Q. B. 
 
 439, 64 E. C. L. 
 
 16, 17, 19, 54, 63 
 Devinney, P., F. W. & C. R. R. 
 
 v., 7 Ohio St. 197 356 
 
 Devitt v. P. R. R , 50 Mo. 302, 3 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 533 302, 345 
 
 Dewey, C, B. & Q. R. R„ 26 111. 
 
 255 260, 283 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Ry., 31 Iowa 
 
 373 88 
 
 Dexter t>. Spear 4 Mason 115 468 
 Delamater, Probst v., 100 N. Y. 
 
 266 301 
 
 Depew, B. & O. R. R. v., 40 Ohio 
 
 St. 121, 12 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas 64 191, 224 
 
 Devo v. N. Y. C. R. R., 34 N. Y. 
 
 9 47 
 
 D., G., H & M. Ry., Young v., 
 Mich. , 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng R. R. Cas. 417 151 
 
 D., H. & L. Ry., Taber v. t 71 N. 
 
 Y. 489 262 
 
 Dibbin, Hinton v., 2 Ad. & El. N. 
 
 S. 661, 42 E. C.L. 8 
 
 Dick v. I. C. & L. R. R., 38 Ohio 
 
 St 3S9, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 Cas. 101 370 
 
 Dickerson, O & M. R. R. v., 59 
 
 Ind. 317 474 
 
 Dickinson, Stone v , 5 Allen 29 394 
 «.N.E.Ev,2H & C. 735 492 
 v. P II. & N. R. R. W., 53 
 
 Mich. 43, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R Cas. 456, 18 N. W. 
 
 Rep. (Mich.) 553 275, 285 
 
 Dietrich v. B & II S Ry , 58 Md. 
 
 347. 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 115 291, 416, 454 
 
 Dills, K. C Ry. v., 4 Bush. (Ky.) 
 
 593 54, 471 
 
 Ditchett v. St P., D. & P. M. R. 
 
 R,67N. Y. 425 133 
 
 Dixon v. Bell, 5 M & S. 198, 1 
 
 Stark 287, 2 E. C L. 39, 95 
 v. M Board of Works, 7 Q. 
 
 B. D. 418 34, 146 
 
 v. B. C. & N. R. R., 100 N. 
 
 Y. 171 275, 508 
 
 C. R. R. v., 42 Ga. 327 283 
 
 Dickson, C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 67 
 
 111. 122 411 
 
 C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 63 111. 
 
 151,7 Am. Ry. Rep. 45 114 
 C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 88 111. 
 
 431 151, 427 
 Dietrich v. P. R. R., 71 Penna. St. 
 
 432 215
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xxxvu 
 
 Dillave v. N. Y. C. E. R., 56 
 
 Barb. 30 253 
 
 Diehl, U. P. K. K. v., 33 Kans. 
 422, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas 350 2G4 
 
 Disher v. N. Y. C. & H. B. R. R., 
 94 N. Y. 622, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 233 301, 307 
 District of Columbia v. B. & P. E. 
 E., 4 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 179 412 
 
 o. McElligott, 117 U, S. 621 382 
 Ditberner v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 
 
 47 Wise. 138 192 
 
 Dickie v. B. & A. E. E., 131 Mass. 
 516, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 203 149 
 
 Dignan, C, E. I. & P. E. E, v., 
 
 56 111. 487 166 
 
 Dill, G. & C. E. E. E. v., 22 111. 
 
 264 157 
 
 Dimick v. C. & N. W. Ey., 80 111. 
 
 338 ' 166 
 
 C. & N. W. Ey. v., 96 111. 42, 
 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 201 169 
 
 D., L. & W. E. E., Baylor v., 40 
 
 N. J. L. 23 302, 345 
 
 Cone v., 81 N. Y. 207, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R, E. Cas. 57 306, 337 
 Dale v., 73 N. Y. 468 284, 422 
 v. Naphevs, 90 Penna. St. 
 135, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 52 270, 271, 443 
 
 Eaton v., 57 N. Y. 382 210, 445 
 v. Mulberrin, 44 Penna. St. 
 
 375, 81 Id. 366 190, 227, 228 
 Eeeves v., 30 Penna. St. 454 
 
 55, 60 
 Bounds v., 64 N. Y. 137 114 
 
 Wasmer v., 80 N. Y. 212, 1 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 122 48, 156 
 
 Woodbridge v., 105 Penna. 
 St. 460, 16 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 55 35, 196 
 Thomas v., 19 Blatchf. 533 166 
 Bonnell v., 39 N. J. L. 189 169 
 D., L. & L. M. Ey., Lvon v., 31 
 
 Mich. 429 378 
 
 D., M. V. E. E., Eose v., 39 Iowa 
 
 246 208, 384, 502 
 
 Hamilton v., 36 Iowa 31 346 
 Doak, L. & B. E. E. v., 52 
 
 Penna. St. 379 246 
 
 Dobbin v. R. & D. E. E., 81 N. 
 
 C. 446 323, 370 
 
 Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203, 
 8 Am. & Eng E. E. < as. 
 485 254, 256 
 
 Dolan, M. C. E. ft. v., 32 Mich. 
 
 510 314,356 
 
 v. D. & H. C. Co., 71 N. Y. 
 
 285 163 
 
 Donahue C. & N. W. Ev. »., 75 
 
 111. 106 3*18, 344, 373 
 
 G., H. & S. A. E. E. v., 56 
 
 Tex. 162, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 .E. E. Cas. 287 112 
 
 P., A. & M. P. Ey. v., 70 
 
 Penna. St. 119 109, 115 
 
 Donaldson, Bussy »., 4 Dall. 
 
 206 468 
 
 v. M. & M. E. E., 18 Iowa 
 
 280 431,432,493 
 
 Dorr v. N. J. S. N. Co., 4 Sandf. 
 
 S. C. 136 501 
 
 Dorsey v. P. & C. C. Co., 42 Wise. 
 
 583 308 
 
 Doss v. M., K. & T. E. E., 59 
 
 Mo. 37, 8 Am. Ev. Rep. 
 
 462 2*20, 264, 471 
 
 Dowell r. B. C. R, & N. Ry., 62 
 
 Iowa 629, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 153 434 
 
 v. V. & M. R. R., 61 Miss. 
 
 519, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 42 318, 376 
 
 v. G. S. Nav. Co., 5 E. & B. 
 
 195, 85 E. C. L. 52, 54 
 
 Downer, W. T. Co. v.. 11 Wall. 
 
 129 438 
 
 Downie v. Hendrie, 46 Mich. 
 
 49S, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 386 291 
 
 Downey, I. C. R. R. v., 18 111. 
 
 259 112, 115 
 
 Doyle, C, St. L. & N. O. R. R. v., 
 
 60 Miss. 977, 8 Am. & 
 
 En^. R. R. Cas. 171 366 
 
 I. & G. N. Ry. v., 49 Tex. 
 
 190 307 
 
 Donovan, Batson v., 4 B. & Aid. 
 
 39 49S 
 
 Doyle, C, R. I. & P. Ry. v., 18 
 
 Kans. 58 314 
 
 Dougherty v. C, B. & Q. R. R., 
 
 86 111. 467 265 
 
 C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 110 111. 
 
 521, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 292 162, 427 
 
 v. M. R. R., 81 Mo. 325, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 497 282, 440 
 
 Doughty v. L. D. Co., 76 Me. 143 356 
 Douglass, Manzoni »., 6 Q. B. D. 
 
 145 434 
 
 Dowling v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R.. 90 N. Y. 670, 1 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 73 69
 
 xxxvin 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Drayton v. N. P. R. R, 10 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 55 152 
 
 Drew v. Peer, 93 Penna. St. 234 389 
 v. New River Co., 6 C. & P. 
 
 754, 25 E. C. L. 148 
 
 v. Sixth Ave. R R, 26 N. 
 Y. 49 489 
 
 Drvburgh, N. Y. & W. Tel. Co. 
 
 v., 33 Penna. St. 298 99 
 
 Dry mala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 
 
 40 305, 329, 330 
 
 Drysdale, W. & A. R. R. v., 51 
 
 Ga. 644 474 
 
 D., S. P. & P. R. R. v. Pickard, 
 8 Colo. 163, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 286 n. 264, 265 
 
 Wilson v., 1 Colo. 101, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 192 319 
 v. Woodward, 4 Colo. 1 431 
 
 D. Turnpike Co. v. Stewart, 2 
 
 Mete. (Ky.) 119 86 
 
 Duckworth v. Johnson, 4 H. & 
 
 N. 653 486, 488 
 
 Duggan, E., T. V. & G. R. R. v., 
 
 51 Ga. 212 416 
 
 Duff v. A. V. R. R-, 91 Penna. 
 St. 458 188, 189, 196,208, 
 
 209, 217, 288 
 v. Budd, 3 Brod. & B. 177, 7 
 
 E. C. L. 7 
 
 v. G. N. Ry., 4 Irish Law 
 Rep. 17^ 501 
 
 Duffy v. C. & N. W.Ry , 32 Wise. 
 
 269 169 
 
 Duffey, L. R. & F. S. R. R. v., 35 
 Ark. 602, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 607 301, 349 
 
 Duffield, E., T V. & G. R. R. v., 
 12 Lea(Tenn.)63, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 35 3S2 
 
 Dunbar, O. & M. R. R. v., 20 111. 
 
 623 141 
 
 Duncan, Davis v. (U. S. C. C. So. 
 Diet. Miss), 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 295 135, 136 
 Morse v. (U. S. C. C. So. Dist. 
 Miss.), 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 374 466 
 
 E. & C. R. R. v., 28 Ind. 441 
 
 265, 270 
 Dunk, Weller v., 4 F. & F. 298 148 
 Dunham, H. & T. C. Ry. v., 49 
 
 Tex. 187 303 
 
 Dunn v. G. T. Ry., 58 Me. 187 
 
 210, 233, 286, 292 
 P., F. W. & C. Ry v., 56 
 
 Penna. St. 280 155,156,163 
 A. &G. W.R. H.v., 19 Ohio 
 St. 162 471 
 
 PAtiS 
 
 Dunn v. B. Canal Co., L. R. 7 Q. 
 
 B. 244, 8 Id. 4'. 14C 
 
 C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 52 111. 
 451 151 
 
 Durgin v. Munson, 9 Allen 396 3U5 
 Durkee v. C. P. R. R., 56 Cal. 
 
 388 492 
 
 Durkin v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 225, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 520 305, 330 
 
 T., W. & W. Ry. v., 76 111. 
 395 356 
 
 Dunkin, L., N. A. & C. Ry. v., 92 
 Ind. 601, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. ( as. 422 108, 189 
 
 Dunleavy v. C, R. I- & P. Ry., 
 Iowa , 21 Am. & 
 Ens. R. R. Cas. 542 112 
 
 Dun v. S. & R. R. R-, 78 Va. 645, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 363 284 
 
 D., W. & P. Ry., Struthers v., 87 
 
 Penna. St. 282 146 
 
 D., W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, 3 
 App. Cas. 1155 174, 180, 
 260, 427. 436, 448, 452, 454, 457 
 Dyke v. E. R. R, 45 N. Y. 113 497 
 Dynen v. Leach, 26 L. J. Ex. 
 
 221 373 
 
 Dyer v. E. R. R , 71 N. Y. 228 86 
 D. & B. J. Ry., Huey v., 5 Irish C. 
 
 L. 206 373 
 
 D. & W. Ry., Scott v., 11 Irish 
 
 Com. Law 377 54 
 
 v. Snicker, 61 Tex. 427, 21 
 Am.&Eng.R. R Cas. 160 
 
 240, 436, 491 
 D. & M. R. R., Curtis v., 23 Wise. 
 
 152. 27 Id. 158 263, 264 
 
 v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99 425 
 D. & S. C. R. R , Greenleaf v., 33 
 
 Iowa 52 373 
 
 D. & II. C. Co., Barringer v., 19 
 
 Hun. 216 307, 368 
 
 Mann v., 91 N. Y. 495 12 
 Am. &Eng. R.R. Cas.199 
 
 314, 315, 320, 329, 332 
 v. Carroll, 89 Penna. St. 374 
 
 320 321, 323 
 
 Massoth v., 64 N. Y. 531 159 
 
 Dolanw., 71 N. Y. 285 163 
 
 Salter i-., 3 Hun. (N.Y.) 338 422 
 
 D. & R. Canal Co., Black v., 22 N. 
 
 J. Eq. 130 133 
 
 D. & R G. Ry. v. Harris, New 
 Mex. , 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 142 111 
 
 D. & S. W. R. R., Fry v., 45 Iowa 
 
 416 473 
 
 Starry v., 51 Iowa 419 436
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 D. AS. E. E.K., State v., 36 Ohio 
 
 St. 436, 5 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 312 155 
 
 D. & N. R. R., Zeigler v., 52 Conn. 
 
 543, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 400 222 
 
 Earl of Anglesea, Annesley v., 17 
 
 How St. Tr. 1139 423 
 
 Earl of Dudley, Griffiths v., 9 Q. 
 
 B. D. 357 383, 410, 509 
 
 E. A. R. R., Whitaker v., 51 N. 
 
 Y.295 416 
 
 East Boston Ferry Co., Le Baron 
 
 v., 11 Allen 312 246, 442 
 
 Eastern R. R., Tyrrell v., Ill 
 
 Mass. 546 
 Eaton v. B. & L. R.R., 11 Allen, 
 
 500 86, 95, 139 
 
 D. L. & W. R. R., 57 N. Y. 
 
 382 210, 445 
 
 C. H. & I. R. R. v., 94 Ind. 
 474, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 254 25, 467 
 
 v. F. R. R., 129 Mass. 364, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 183 162, 163 
 
 Eakin, ST. & C. R. R. v., 6 Coldw. 
 
 (Tenn.) 582 409 
 
 Eames v. T. & N. O. R. R., 63 
 Tex. 660, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 540 27 
 
 Eagan «>. F. R. R., 101 Mass. 
 
 315 169 
 
 Eckert v. L. I. Rv., 43 N. Y. 502 
 
 37, 50 
 E. C. Ry. v. Broom, 6 Ex 314 
 
 99, 110, 112, 113 
 i Corman v., 4 H. & N. 78 
 
 25, 255, 257 
 Manser v., 3 L. T. N. S. 585 
 
 237, 238, 240 
 Singleton v., 7 C. B. N. S. 
 
 287, 97 E. C. L. 94, 195, 196 
 
 Skip v., 9 Ex. 223 318, 373 
 
 Stokes v., 2 F. & F. 691 238 
 
 G. N. Rv. v., 9 Hare 306 133 
 
 Eden v. L. & F. R. R., 14 B. 
 
 Monr. 204 397 
 
 Edgar v. N. By., 4 Ont. (Can.) 
 201, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 347, 11 Ont. Apt). 452, 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 433 262, 264, 266 
 
 Edgar, C. & E. Spring Co. v., 99 
 
 U.S. 645 145 
 
 Edgerton v. N. Y. C& H. R. R. R., 
 
 39 N. Y. 227 274. 286, 292, 439 
 Edgelev, Sly v., 6 Esp. 6 120 
 
 Edwards r. L. .V- N. W. Ry., L. R. 
 
 5 C. P. 445 110,112 
 
 Egbert, Adams Ex. Co. v., 36 
 
 Penna. St. 360 460 
 
 Egerton, Gautret v., L. R. 2 C. P. 
 
 374 177 
 
 Elirgott v. The Mayor, 96 N. Y. 
 
 264 473 
 
 Eighth Ave. R. R., Clark v., 36 
 
 N. Y. 135 290 
 
 Sandford v., 23 N. Y. 343 50, 109 
 Eldredge v. M. cV St. L. R. R., 
 32 Minn. 253, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 404 443 
 
 Elkins v. B. & A. R. R., 115 
 
 Mass. 190 69 
 
 Ellet v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 
 76 Mo. 518, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 183 34, 277 
 Elliott v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 
 
 67 Mo. 272 314 
 
 W. Ry. v., 9« III. 481, 4 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 651 
 
 305, 307, 345, 364 
 v. Hall, 15 Q. B. D. 315 202 
 
 Ellis v. Sheffield G. C. Co., 2 E. 
 
 & B. 767, 75 E. C. L. 127 
 
 v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R, R,, 
 95 N. Y. 546, 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 641 
 
 303, 307, 337 
 v. L. &S.W. Ry., 2H.&N. 
 
 424 47 
 
 v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 9 C. P. 
 551 428 
 
 Elmer v. Locke, 135 Mass. 575, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 300 305, 337 
 
 Elv v. St. L., K. O & N. Ry., 77 
 Mo. 34, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas 342 32, 422 
 
 Emblen v. Myers, 6 H. & N. 
 
 54 471 
 
 Emerson v. N. N. Co., 2 Ont. 
 
 (Can.) 528 110 
 
 Empire Trans. Co v. Wamsntta 
 
 Oil Co., 63 Penna. St. 14 501 
 England, Feltham v., 7 B. & S. 
 676 (L. R. 1 Q. B 33); 
 2 Id. 33 320, 323, 324 
 
 English Joint Stock Bank, Bar- 
 wick v., L. R. 2 Ex. 259 106 
 Entwistle v. Fergner, 60 Mo. 214 417 
 Eppendorf v. B. C. R. R., 69 N. 
 
 Y. 195 291 
 
 Ernst v. H. R. R., 39 N. Y. 61 173 
 Erie v. Caulkins, 85 Penna. St. 
 
 247 122, 125 
 
 E. R. R., Blair v., 66 N. Y. 313 
 
 216, 502 
 Burrows v.. 63 N. Y. 556 
 
 103, 264
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 E. R. R., Green v., 11 Hun 333 257 
 Harper v., 32 N. J. L. 88, 3 
 
 Vroom 88 47,264 
 
 Knowlton v., 10 Ohio St. 
 
 260 501 
 
 Lyons v., 57 N. Y. 4S9 480 
 
 McGeary v., 135 Mass. 363, 
 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 407 91 
 
 Morrison v., 56 N. Y. 302 103 
 Nicholson v., 41 N. Y. 525 
 
 40, 177, 178 
 Robertson v., 22 Barb. 91 283 
 Warner v., 44 N. Y. 465 434 
 
 Oilman v., 10 Allen 233, 13 
 
 Id. 433 314, 356, 368 
 
 Prescott v., 113 Mass. 370 153 
 Harvey v., 116 Mass. 269 
 
 260, 264 
 Dyer v., 71 N. Y. 228 86 
 
 Norten v., 113 Mass. 366 153 
 Keelcy v., 47 How. Pr. 256 38 
 Gibson v.. 63 N. Y. 449 343, 
 
 345, 378 
 Warner v., 39 N. Y. 468 298, 305 
 Chapman v., 55 N. Y. 579 314 
 Morrisey v., 126 Mass. 377 196 
 Truax v., 4 Lansing 198 216 
 
 Pollock v., 124 Mass. 158 153 
 Hodgkins v., 119 Mass. 419 303 
 Paulmier v., 5 Vroom 151 
 
 305, 337 
 Porter v., 3 Vroom 261 471 
 
 Smith v., 124 Mass. 154 134 
 
 Hanlan v., 114 Mass. 34 139 
 
 Ackerson v , 3 Vroom 254 471 
 Conlon v., 135 Mass. 195, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 99 151 
 Dyke v., 45 N. Y. 113 497 
 
 Plumtner v., 73 Me. 591, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 165 169 
 
 Faulkner v., 49 Barb. 324 305 
 Ervin, P.& R. R. R. v., 89 Penna. 
 
 St 71 42 
 
 Erwin, N. & C. R. R. v., Tenn. 
 , 3 Am. & Eng. R. R, 
 
 Cas. 465 15, 62, 286, 287 
 
 Essex Bank, Foster v., 17 Mass. 
 
 479 7 
 
 Estes, I. R. R. v., 96 111. 470 306 
 
 E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Fain, 12 
 
 Lea (Tenn.) 35, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. (as. 102 196 
 Haynes v., 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 
 
 222 355 
 
 Trollenger v., 11 Tenn. 533 251 
 v. Grurley, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 46, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 568 15, 62, 314, 366 
 
 E. T. V. & G. R. R., Collins v., 9 
 
 Heisk. (Tenn.) 841 493 
 
 v. Duffield, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 
 63, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 35 382 
 
 v. Duggan, 51 Ga. 212 416 
 
 v. Smith, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 685 
 
 307, 374 
 v. Stewart, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 
 432, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 614 306 
 
 v. St. John, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 
 
 524 196 
 
 v. Toppins, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 
 58, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 222 305, 378 
 
 v. Humphreys, 12 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 200. 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R, R. Cas. 472 196 
 
 v. Feathers, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 
 103, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 446 160 
 
 E. T. Co., Cooper v., 75 N. Y. 
 
 116 413 
 
 Evans v. P., F. W. & C. R. R. v., 
 
 53 Penna. St. 250 457 
 
 Wray v., 80 Penna. St. 102 122 
 Evansich v. G. C. & S. F. R R., 
 57 Tex. 123, 6 Am & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 182 69, 186 
 
 Everhart v. T. H. & I. R. R., 78 
 Ind. 292, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 599 212, 370, 371 
 Ewen v. C. & N. W. Ry., 38 
 
 Wise. 614 69, 76 
 
 Express Co. v. Kuntze, 8 Wall. 
 
 342 501 
 
 Eyles, Ravenscroft v., 2 Wils. 295 468 
 Eyster, W. U. T. Co. v., 91 U. S. 
 
 495, note 471 
 
 E. & C. R. R. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 
 
 102 37, 50 
 
 v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 441 265, 270 
 
 v. Wolf, 59 Ind. 89 76 
 
 v. Banin, 26 Ind. 70 108 
 
 E. & N. R. R., Hanson v., 62 
 
 Me. 84 114 
 
 E. & N. A. R. R., State v., 67 
 
 Me. 479 134 
 
 Brown v., 58 Me. 384 91 
 
 E. & T. H. R. R. v. McKee, 99 
 Ind. 519, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 RR. Cas. 366 110 
 
 Faber v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 29 
 Minn. 465, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 277 160 
 
 Fain, E. T. V. & G. R. R. v., 12 
 J. B. Lea (Tenn.) 35, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 102 196
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xli 
 
 Fairchild t. C. S. Co., 13 Cal. 604 233 
 Fairrie. Wilkinson v., 1 H. & C. 
 
 633 177 
 
 Falkner v. G S. & W. Ey., 5 I. 
 
 C. L. 213 2S3 
 
 Fant, Pleasants v., 22 Wall. 121 453 
 Fairman v Lauman, 73 Ind. 568 470 
 Farnum, Ballou v., 9 Allen 47 135 
 Farnham v. C. & A. E. E., 55 
 
 Penna. St. 62 501 
 
 Farley v. C., E. I. & P. E. E., 42 
 
 Iowa 234, 56 Id. 337, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 108 
 
 155 375 
 Farlow v. Kellv, 108 U. S. 288 
 
 274, 285 
 Farrell, C. & I. C. E. E. v., 31 
 
 Ind. 408 
 
 103, 253, 262, 266, 467 
 Faulkner, Potter v., 1 B. & S. 
 
 800, 101 E. C. L. 212, 370 
 v. E. Ey., 49 Barb. 324 305 
 
 Farwell v. B. & W. E. E., 4 
 
 Mete. 49, 1 Eedf. Am. Ey. 
 
 Cas. 395 
 
 350, 351, 356, 359, 363, 366 
 Favor v. B. & L. E. E., 114 Mass. 
 
 350 152 
 
 Fawcett v. P., C. & St. L. E. E., 
 
 24 W. Va. 755, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 1 11, 39 
 
 Fay, C. & G. E. E. v., 16 111. 568 292 
 v. M. & St. L. Ey., 30 Minn. 
 
 231, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 193 309, 330 
 
 Feathers, E. T. V. & G. E. E. v., 
 
 10 Lea (Tenn.) 103, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 446 160 
 
 Felder v. L. C. & C E. E., 2 
 
 MacMullan 403 192 
 
 Feller, C. E. E. v., 84 Penna. St. 
 
 226 166, 169, 454 
 
 Feltham v. England, 7 B. & S. 
 
 676, L. E. 1 Q. B. 33. 2 
 
 Id. 33 320, 323, 324 
 
 Fenton v. City of Dublin Steam 
 
 Paeket Co., 8 A. & E. 835, 
 
 35 E. C. L. 103 
 
 Fergner, Entwistle v., 60 Mo. 214 417 
 Ferris, Blake v., 5 N. Y. 58 122 
 
 Fessler v. Love, 43 Penna. St. 
 
 313 460 
 
 Festal v. M. E. E., 109 Mass. 720 
 
 275, 439 
 Ferguson v. W. C. Ey., 63 Wise. 
 
 145, 19 Am. & En?. E. K, 
 Cas. 285 166, 173, 444 
 
 v. V. & T. E. E., 13 Nev. 
 184 155 
 
 Ferguson v. C. I. Ey., 58 Iowa 293, 
 
 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 614 374 376, 
 
 Field, Huzzey v., 2 C. M. & E. 
 
 432 106 
 
 Fielding. Oakland Ey. v., 48 
 
 Penna. St. 320 68, 148, ?50 
 Fifield v. N. E. E., 42 N. H. 225 
 
 305, 344 
 Filbern, L. & N. E. E. v., 6 Bush. 
 
 (Kv.) 574 54 
 
 Filer v. JJ. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 49 
 
 N. Y. 47, 59 Id. 351 
 
 18, 103, 264, 287,473 
 Fillmore, C. & N. E. E. v., 57 111. 
 
 265 253, 416 
 
 Fillibrowne v. G. T. Ev., 55 Me. 
 
 462 501 
 
 Finch, Walden v., 70 Penna. St. 
 
 400 201 
 
 Finney, M. & M. E. E. v., 10 
 
 Wise. 388 108, 416 
 
 v. N. P. Ev., Dak. , 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 17 454 
 
 Findlay, A. V. E. E. v.. 4 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 438 224 
 
 Finlavson, S. C. & P. Ev. v., 16 
 
 Neb. 272, 18 Am. '& Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 68 306, 382, 424 
 Fitchburg E. E., Bucher v., 151 
 
 Mass. 156, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E E. Cas. 212 65 
 
 Fitzgerald v. St. P., M. & M. E. 
 
 E., 29 Minn. 336, 8 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 310 
 
 28, 42, 91, 193 
 Fitzpatrick v. N. A. & S. E. E., 7 
 
 Ind. -J36 367 
 
 v. G. W. Ey., 12 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 645 29, 292 
 
 L. M. E. E. v., 42 Ohio St. 
 
 318, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 578 309,310,335,367 
 L. S. & M. S. E. E. v., 31 
 < Ohio St. 479 305 
 
 Fitzsimmons, K. C. Ry.w.,18 Kans. 
 
 34, 22 Id. 686," 15 Am. Ev. 
 
 Eep. 220 122, 186 
 
 F. I. Co., Carleton v., 99 Mass. 216 201 
 Fisher, Creed v., 9 Ex. 472 470 
 
 Fitts v. C. C. Ey., 59 W T isc. 325, 
 
 15 Am. (fe Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 462 454 
 
 Fix, L. E & W. Ev. v., 88 Ind. 
 
 381, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 109 25,467 
 
 Flagg, C. & A. E. E. v., 43 111. 
 
 364 108, 251
 
 xlii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Flagler, Brownell v., 5 Hill 282 50 
 Flanders v. Meath 27 Cra. 858 74 
 Flanigan, I., B. &W.JEL. E. v., 77 
 
 111. 3(55 302, 303 
 
 Flanagan u. C. & N. W. Ey., 45 
 
 Wise. 98, 50 Id. 462, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 150 
 
 302, 307, 345 
 Flexman, C. & E. E. E. v., 103 
 
 111. 546, 8 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 354 114 
 
 Fleming, L. & N. E. E. v., 14 
 
 Lea (Tenn.) 128, 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 347 
 
 25, 60, 250, 466 
 Fleck v. U. Ev., 134 Mass. 480, 16 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 372 290 
 Flemming v. St. P. & D. E. E., 
 
 27 Minn. Ill 344 
 
 Fletcher v. Braddick, 5 Bos. & 
 
 Pul. 182 103 
 
 Bylands v., 3 H. & C. 774, 
 
 L. E. 1 Ex. 265, L. E. 3 
 
 II. L. 330 145 
 
 v. Tayleur, 17 C. B. 21, 84 E. 
 
 C. L. 460 
 
 Flinn, A. T. & S. F. E. E. v., 24 
 
 Ivans. 627, 1 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 240 35, 72 
 
 v. P., W. & B. E. E., 1 
 
 Houston (Del.) 469 205, 233 
 Flint v. N. & N. Y. T. Co., 34 
 
 Conn. 554 281 
 
 i>. N. & VV. E. E., 110 Mass. 
 
 222 152 
 
 Flower v. P. E. E., 69 Penna. 
 
 St. 210 
 
 74, 115, 188, 196, 288,370,371 
 Flike v. B. & A. E. E., 53 N. Y. 
 
 549 317, 322, 330 
 
 Fleytas v. P. E. E.. 18 La. An. 
 
 O S. 339 192 
 
 Flynn, K. C. St. J. & C. B. Ey. 
 
 v., 78 Mo. 195, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 23 
 
 306, 382, 436, 444 
 F. L. & T. Co., Seaman v., 15 
 
 Wise. 578 489 
 
 Foley v. C. & N. W. Ey., 48 
 
 Mich. 622, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 161 344 
 Foord, Smead v., 1 El. & EL 602, 
 
 102 E. C. L. 460 
 
 Ford v. L. & S. W. Ey., 2 F. & 
 
 F. 730 165, 246 
 v. C. I. E. E., Iowa , 
 
 1 7 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 599 434 
 
 V. F. E. E., 110 Mass. 241 
 
 306, 329, 369, 382 
 
 Fordham v. B. & S. C. Ey., L. E. 
 
 3 C.-P. 368, 4 Id. 619 277 
 
 Forsdike v. Stone, L. E. 3 C. P. 
 
 607 476 
 
 Forrester, Butterheld v., 11 East 
 
 60 45, 47, 51 
 
 Fort, U. P. E. E. v., 17 Wall. 
 
 553 339, 350, 370 
 
 Forsyth v. B. & A. E. E., 103 
 
 Mass. 510 253, 254, 259 
 
 Forsythe, McCall v., 4 W. & S. 
 
 179 390, 394 
 
 Foster v Juniata Bridge Co., 16 
 
 Penna. St. 393 31 
 
 v. Fowler, 60 Penna. St. 27 4 
 v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479 7 
 Pittsburg Coal Co. v., 59 
 
 Penna. St. 365 460 
 
 N. C. & St. L. Ey. v., 
 Tenn. , 11 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 180 335, 367 
 
 v. C & A. E. E., 84 111. 
 164 376 
 
 Foulkes v. M. Ey., 4 C.P. D. 267, 
 5 Id. 157 
 
 217, 218. 266, 269, 390 
 Fowler, H. & T. C. E. E. v., 56 
 Tex. 452, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 504. 32 
 
 Foster v., 60 Penna. St. 27 4 
 
 v. Locke, L. E. 7 C. P. 272, 
 9 Id. 751 n. 232 
 
 Priestley v., 3 M. & W. 1 
 
 296, 344, 350 
 v. B. & O. E. E., 18 W. Va. 
 579, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 480 180 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Ey., 61 Wise. 
 169, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 536 346 
 
 Fox, Wiggett v., 11 Ex. 832 
 
 342, 356 
 Knight v., 5 Ex. 721 122 
 
 H. & St. J. E. E. v., 31 
 Kans. 587, 15 Am. &Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 325 370 
 
 Foy v. L. B. & S. C. Ev., 18 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 225, 114 E. C. L. 266 
 v. P. W. & B. E. E., 47 Md. 
 76 163 
 
 Fortescue, Batchelor v., 11 Q. B. 
 
 D. 474 177 
 Fortnev, P. E. E. v., 90 Penna. 
 
 St. 323, 1 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 129 174, 441. 454 
 Foss v. C. M. & St. P. E. E., 33 
 
 Minn. 392, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 113 224 
 
 Foxlev, C. P. Ey. v., 107 Penna. 
 
 St. 537 454
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xliii 
 
 Fraker v. St. P., M. & M. Ey., 32 
 
 Minn. 54, 15 Am & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 256. 
 
 323, 346, 368, 369 
 France, White v., L. R. 2 C. P. 
 
 D. 308 200 
 
 Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 184, 501 200, 201, 237 
 
 v. St. L. T. Co., 5 Mo. App. 
 
 Cas. 7 25, 466 
 
 Frandsen v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 
 
 36 Iowa 372 383 
 
 Franklin v. S. E. Ry., 3 H. & N. 
 
 211 487 
 
 Fray, U. P. Ry. v., 31 Kans. 739, 
 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 158 378 
 
 Frazier v. P. R. R., 38 Penna. St. 
 
 104 313 314, 330, 356, 366, 373 
 Fredericks, T. W. & W. R. R. v., 
 
 71 111. 294 301 
 
 Freemantle v. L. & N. W. Ry., 10 
 
 C. B. N. S. 95, 100 E. C. 
 
 L. 246, 247 
 
 Freeman, Overton v., 11 C. B. 867, 
 
 73 E C. L. 122 
 
 Freeman, St. L., I. M. & S. 
 
 Ry. v., 36 Ark. 41, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 608 91, 482 
 
 Freeman v. M. & St. L. Ry., 28 
 
 Minn 443, 7 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 410 133 
 
 Frelka, I. C. R. R. v., 110 111. 498, 
 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 7 222, 470 
 
 French, Brown v., 14 Weekly 
 
 Notesof Cases (Penna.)412 112 
 Frey, Stockton v., 4 Gill 406 233 
 
 Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 
 
 75 Mo. 595, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 280 
 77, 91, 1-57, 159, 167, 196,482 
 Fricsch v. Allegheny, 91 Penna. 
 
 St. 226 6 
 
 F. R. R., Holden v., 129 Mass. 
 
 268, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 94 306,363,367 
 
 Eaton v., 129 Mass. 364, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 183 162,163 
 
 Ford v., 110 Mass. 241 
 
 306, :'.29, 369,382 
 Moore v., 4 Gray 465 108 
 
 Snow v., 136 Mass. 552, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 161 102,255 
 
 White*., 136 Mass. 321, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 140 139, 233, 275 
 
 F. R. R., Warren v., 8 Allen 227 
 
 139,213,233, 257,2*7,436, 502 
 Titcomb ... 12 Allen 254 149 
 Tully v., 134 Mass. 499, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 682 169,425,429 
 
 Eagan v., 101 Mass. 315 169 
 
 v. Paue, 131 Mass. 391, 7 Am. 
 & Ens?. R. R. Cas. 86 180 
 
 F. Ry.. Jones v., L. R. 3 Q. B. 
 
 733 145 
 
 Frost v. G. T. R. R.,10 Allen 387 
 
 103, 270 
 Grizzle v., 3 F. & F. 622 320 
 
 Frederick, W. R. R. v., 71 111. 
 
 294 307 
 
 Fry, Clark v., 8 Ohio St. 358 
 
 122 127 
 v. D. & S. W. Ry., 45 Iowa 
 416 473 
 
 Fries v. Cameron, 4 Richardson 
 
 228 201 
 
 Friedman v. R. R , 7 Phila. 
 
 203 417 
 
 F. S. & P. V. Ry. v. Gibson, 96 
 
 Penna. St. 83 442 
 
 F. S. St. R. R., Ihl v., 47 N. Y. 
 
 317 70, 482, 489 
 
 F, S. & G. St. F. R. R. v. Haves, 
 
 97 N. T. 259, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 358 _ 291 
 
 Fuess, School District of Erie v., 
 
 98 Penna. St. 600 122 
 Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46 
 
 300, 306, 329, 369 
 v. N.RE, 21 Conn. 557 263, 481 
 Fullerton, M. S. J". & A. R. R. v., 
 14 C. B. N. S. 54, 108 E. 
 C. L. 151, 153 
 
 Furness Ey., McCawley v., L. R. 
 
 8 Q. B. 57 499 
 
 Furst v. S. A. R. R., 72 N. Y. 
 
 542 416 
 
 Funston v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 61 
 [owa 452, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 640 166, 169 
 
 F. W. J. & S. Ry. r. Gildersleeve, 
 
 33 Mich. 133 303 
 
 F. & A. St. P. Ry. Co. v. Stutler, 
 
 54 Penna. St. 375 392, 413 
 
 F. & B. Turnpike Co. v. P. & T. 
 R. R., 54 Penn. St. 345 
 
 6, 146, 246 
 F. & P. M. By.v. Weir, 37 Mich. 
 
 Ill 208 
 
 Gilbert v., 51 Mich 488 152 
 
 Lewi-< v.,54 .Mich. 55, IS Am. 
 
 &En ? . E. R. Cas. 263 25, 466 
 0.WiIley,47 Mich. 88,5 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 305 156
 
 xliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 F. & P. Rv , Glassey v., 57 Penna. 
 
 St. 172 76 
 
 F. & W. R. R., Robinson v., 7 
 
 Gray 92 434 
 
 Gahagan o.B.& L.R. R.,1 Allen 
 
 187 283 
 
 Gale n. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 
 
 70 N. Y. 594 470 
 
 Galena v. H. S. R. R., 13 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 116 114 
 
 Galentine, Penna. Co. v., 77 Ind. 
 
 320, 7 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 517 436 
 
 Gallagher, Haves v., 72 Penna. 
 
 St. 136 ' 148 
 
 v. Piper, 16 C. B. N S. 669, 
 
 111 E. C. L. 3-23,333,434 
 
 W. P. P. Ry. v., 16 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 413 68, 291 
 
 v. Humphrey, 6 L. T. N. S. 
 
 684 178 
 
 Penna. Co. v., 40 Ohio S.. 
 
 637, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 341 222 
 
 Galliard v. L. & Y. Ry., 12 L. 
 
 T. 356 486, 491 
 
 Gallin v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 
 
 10 Q. B. 212 500 
 
 Gannon v. H. R. R., 112 Mass. 
 
 234 372 
 
 Gardiner, Birge v., 19 Conn. 507 91 
 Dengate v., 4 M. & W. 6 481 
 Gardner v. N. II. & N. R. R., 51 
 
 Conn. 143, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 170 18S, '208, 209 
 v. L. C. & D. Ry., L. R. 2 
 
 Ch. 201 • 132, 134 
 
 Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 
 
 374 177 
 
 Gasway v. A. & W. P. Ry., 58 
 
 Ga. 216 113, 114 
 
 Gas Lischt Co., Buesching v., 73 
 
 Mo. 229 436, 444 
 
 Gates v. S. M. R. R., 28 Minn. 
 
 110, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 237 31, 32, 300, 302, 
 
 303, 305 
 Gavett v. M. & L. R. R., 16 Gray 
 
 501 63, 265 
 
 Gay, Ware v., 11 Pick. 106 439 
 
 GaVnor v. O. C. & N. R. R , 100 
 
 .Mn.s. 208 17:;, 257, 266 
 
 Garcia, T. & P. Rv. v., 62 Tex. 285, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 384 205,210 
 
 Gartkmd v T. W. & W. Rv., 67 
 
 1)1. 498 338 
 
 Garvey, C. & A. R. R. v., 58 111. 
 
 83 166 
 
 G. A. Rv., Stein v., 10 Phila. 
 
 440 418 
 
 Galloway v. W. & A. R, R., 57 
 
 Ga. 512 510 
 
 G. C. & S. F. R. R., Evansich v., 
 57 Tex. 123, 6 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 182 69, 186 
 Dallas v., 61 Tex. 196, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 575 368 
 
 Geary, C. & E. I. R. R. v., 110 
 111. 383, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 606 317, 368, 373 
 Gee v. Metropolitan Rv., L. R 8 
 
 Q. B. 161 i5, 63, 279, 280 
 
 v. L. & Y. Ry., 6 H. & N. 
 211 m 460, 462 
 
 Geese v, Stiles v., 71 Penna. St. 
 
 439 55, 60 
 
 Geddes v. M. R. R., 103 Mass. 
 
 391 282 
 
 George, C B. & Q. R. R. v., 19 
 
 111. 510 275, 439 
 
 v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 34 
 Ark. 613, 1 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 294 240, 275, 
 
 439, 503 
 v. Skivington, L. R. 5 Ex. 1 412 
 Gerard v. P. R. R., 12 Phila. 394, 
 5 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 251 229 
 
 G. E. Rv., Berringer v., 4 C. P. 
 
 D. 163 393 
 
 Pulling »., 9 Q. B.D.I 10 398 
 Read v., L. R. 2 Q. B. 555 
 
 410, 509 
 Richardson v., L. R. 10 C. 
 P. 486, 1 C. P. D. 342 
 
 238, 240, 309 
 Smith v., L. R. 2 C. P. 54 259 
 Gerety v. P. W. & B. R. R., 81 
 
 Penna. St. 274 88, 169 
 
 Geveke v. G. R. & I. Rv., 
 
 Mich. , 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 551 151, 154, 474 
 G. H. & S. A. R. R. v. Bracken, 
 57 Tex. 71, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 691 168 
 
 Burton v., 61 Tex. 526, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 218 123 
 
 v. Delahunty, 53 Tex. 206, 
 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 628 306 
 
 v. Donahue, 56 Tex. 162, 9 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 287 112 
 
 Hamilton v., 54 Tex. 550. 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 528 341
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xlv 
 
 G. H. & S. A. E. E., v. Le Gierse, 
 
 51 Tex. 189 63, 264 
 
 v. Leinpe. 59 Tex. 19, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 201 349 
 v. Davidson. 61 Tex. 204, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 431 277 
 
 Gibbs, Mersey Docks Trustees »., 
 
 3 H. & N. 164, 11 H. L. 
 
 C. 686, L. E. 1 H. L. 93 
 
 7,129,200,201,237,329 
 Giblin v. McMullen, L. E. 2 P. C. 
 
 335 454 
 
 Gibson v. Midland Ey., 2 Ont. 
 
 (Can.) 653 302, 345, 492 
 
 v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ey., 8 
 
 Mo. App. 488 151 
 
 F. B. & P. V. Ey. v., 96 Penna. 
 
 St. 83 442 
 
 v. E. Ey., 63 N. Y. 449 
 
 343, 345, 378 
 v. N. C. Ev., 22 Hun 289 335, 367 
 Gidlow, Griffiths v., 3H.&N. 
 
 648 373 
 
 Giles v. T. V. Ey., 2 El. & Bl. 822, 
 
 75 E. C."L. 445 
 
 Gill v. M. S. & L. Ev., L. E. 8 Q. 
 
 B. 186 217 
 
 Gilleland, P., F. W. & C. Ev. v., 
 
 56 Penna. St. 445 31, 32 
 
 Gilshannon v. S. B. E. E,, 10 
 
 Cush. 228 211 356,368 
 
 Gillis v. P. E. E., 59 Penna. St. 
 
 139 177 
 
 Gilson v. J. C. H. Ey, 76 Mo. 
 
 282, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 132 235 
 
 Ardesco Oil Co. v., 63 Penna. 
 
 St. 146 122, 305 
 
 Gilmore, Beatty v., 16 Penna. St. 
 
 463 148 
 
 v. N. P. Ey., 18 Fed. Eep. 
 
 866, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 304 323,329,369 
 
 Oilman v. E. E. E., 10 Allen 233, 
 
 13 Id. 433 314, 356, 368 
 
 Gilbert, M. C. E. E. v., 46 Mich. 
 
 IT'l, 2 Am. & Eng. R. E. 
 
 Cas. 230 314 
 
 v. F. & P. M. Ev., 51 Mich. 
 
 488 152 
 
 I. .V G. N. R. R. v., 64 Tex. 
 
 536, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 405 467 
 
 Gi'lenv -iter v. M.& I. Ey., 5 Ind. 
 
 339 208 
 
 Gildersleeve, F. W. J. & S. Ey. v., 
 
 33 Mich. 1 33 303 
 
 Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Penna. 
 
 St. 144 183, 196 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ginna v. S. A. E. R., 67 1S.Y. 
 
 596 291 
 
 Ginther, McLeed i>., 80 Ky. 399, 
 8 Am. & Eng. K. K. Cas. 
 162, 15 Id. 291 317,355,416 
 Gillett, Osborn v., L. E, 8 Ex. 88 397 
 G. I. P. Ey., Martin v., L. E. 3 
 
 Ex. 9 217 
 
 Gilliam v. S. & N. A. E, E„ 70 
 Ala. 268, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 138 115 
 
 G. J. Ey., Bridge v, 3 M. & W. 
 
 244 45, 47, 51, 78, 86 
 
 Gladmon, W. & G. Ey. v., 15 
 
 Wall. 401 67, 68, 436 
 
 Glandine, Heil v., 42 Penna. St. 
 
 493 47, 56, 60 
 
 Glassev v. F. & P. Ev., 57 
 
 Penna. St. 172 76 
 
 Gleason, C. R. E. v , 69 Ga. 200 60 
 v. Bremen, 50 Me. 222 436 
 
 Glushing v. Sharp, 96 N. Y. 676, 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 372 164 
 
 G. Mfg. Co., Gunter v., 18 S. C. 
 
 262 329 
 
 G. N. Ev., Duff v., 4 Irish Law 
 
 Eep. 178 501 
 
 Goff v., 3 E. & E. 672, 107 
 
 E. C. L. 445 
 
 Hamlin v., 1 H. & N. 408 460 
 v. Hanson, 10 Ex. 376 206,390 
 Harrison v., 3 H. & C. 231 39, 95 
 Leggott v., 1 Q. B. D. 599 401 
 Martin v., 16 C. B. 179, 81 E. 
 
 C. L. 48, 254 
 
 Pymr.,2B. &S.750, HOE. 
 C. L. ; 4 B. & S. 396, 116 
 E. C. L. 87, 482 
 
 Taylor v., L. E. 1 C. P. 385 
 
 39, 140 
 v. E. C. Ev., 9 Hare 306 133 
 
 Goddard, H. W. R. E. v., 25 Ind. 
 
 185 86, 157 
 
 v. G. T. Ey., 57 Me. 202 114, 471 
 Godlev, Carson v., 26 Penna. St. 
 
 "ill 200 
 
 v. Haggerty, 20 Penna. St. 
 387 200 
 
 Godding, Hamilton v., 55 Me. 428 65 
 Godfrey, I. C. E. E. v., 71 111. 500 
 
 177, 190, 197 
 Goff v. G. N. Ev., 3 E. & E. 672, 
 
 107 E. C. L. 445 
 
 Goldstein v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 
 
 46 Wise. 404 224 
 
 Goodchild, Eowning v., 2 W. Bl. 
 
 906 40 
 
 Goldev v. P. R. E., 30 Penna. St. 
 
 "242 205
 
 xlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Goodman v. KennelL 3 C. & P. 
 
 167, 14 E. C. L. 99 
 
 Goldthorpe v. Hardman, 13 M.& 
 
 W. 'Ml 148 
 
 Goodwin, Illidge v., 5 C. & P. 190, 
 
 2 l E. C. L. 39, 95, 148 
 
 v. C, R. L& P. K. R„ 75 
 
 Mo. 73, 1 1 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 469 158 
 
 Gorbett, H. & T. C. Rv. v., 49 
 
 Tex. 573 47, 60 
 
 Gordon v. G. St. & N. R. R., 40 
 
 Barb. 546 213 
 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 58 M . H. 396 421 
 v. Rolt, 4 Ex. 364 386, 388 
 
 Gormiey v, O. & M. Ry., 72 Ind. 
 
 31, 5 Am. & Eng. R R. 
 
 Cas. 531 368 
 
 Gorris v. Scott, L. R. 9 Exch. 1 25 42 
 Gould v. McKeuna, 86 Penna. St. 
 
 297 31, 47 
 
 v. C. B. & Q. R. R., 66 Iowa 
 
 590 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 2S9 308 
 
 Gonzales v. N. Y. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 50 How. Pr. 126 265 
 
 Gothard v. A. G. S. R. R., 67 Ala. 
 
 114 60,171 
 
 Gottleib v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. 
 
 R., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 637, 
 
 100N.Y. 462 309,311 
 
 Goodfellow i>. B, H. & E. R. R., 
 
 106 Mass. 461 179 
 
 Goodman, P. R. R. v., 62 Penna. 
 
 St. 329 157, 481, 490 
 
 Goetz, L., C. & L. R. R. v., 79 
 
 Ky. 442, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 627 159 
 G. P. Rv- v. Brophy, 105 Penna. 
 
 St. 38, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 361 285 
 
 v. Walling, 97 Penna. St. 55, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 20 290, 454 
 
 Grabel, T., W. & W. Ry. v., 88 
 
 111. 441 91 
 
 Gradin v. St, P. & D. Ry., 30 
 
 Minn. 217, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 644 209 
 
 Grabam, Davidson v., 2 Ohio St. 
 
 131 501 
 
 v. Davis, 4 Ohio St. 362 501 
 
 v. N. E. Ry., 18 C. B. N. S. 
 
 229, 114 E. C. L. 221,308,372 
 v. Pacific R. R., 66 Mo. 536 501 
 P. & O. Canal Co. v., 63 
 
 Penna. St. 290 148, 149, 473 
 T. H. & I. R. R v., 95 Ind. 
 
 286, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 77 ' 191, 193 
 
 C raliam v. G. W. Ry., 41 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 324 240 
 
 Gramlich u. Wurst, 86 Penna. St. 
 
 7 1 183, 196 
 
 Gray, H., M. & F. Ry. v., 3 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 421 68 
 
 v. P. & R. R. R. (U. S. C. C. 
 N. D. N. Y.), 22 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 351 86 
 
 v. Scott, 66 Penna. St. 345 68 
 Sharp v., 9 Bing. 457, 23 E. 
 C. L. 232 
 
 Green v. London Gen'l Omnibus 
 Co., 7 C. B. N. S. 290, 97 
 E. C. L. 99, 107 
 
 v. E. Ry., 11 Hun 333 257 
 
 M. & C. R. R. v., 52 Miss. 
 
 779 460 
 
 P. P. Ry. v., 56 Md. 84, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 168 212, 371 
 
 I. C. R. R. v., 81 111. 19 283 
 
 v. II. R. R. R., 2 Keyes (N. 
 Y.) 294 398 
 
 Green Bay Co., McArthur v., 34 
 
 Wise. 139 65 
 
 Greene, L. & N. R. R. v., Ky. 
 , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 95 192, 196 
 
 v.M.& St. L. Ry., 31 Minn. 
 248, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 214 306 
 
 Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243 
 
 12,82 
 Greenwood, Seymour v., 7 H. & 
 
 N. 354 107, 108 
 
 Greenwald v. M., H. & O. R. R., 
 49 Mich. 197, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 133 338, 364, 367 
 Greany v. L. I. R. R., 101 N. Y. 
 
 419 427 
 
 Greenleaf v. I. C. R. R., 29 Iowa 
 
 14 373 
 
 v. D. & S. C. R. R., 33 Iowa 
 52 373 
 
 Gregory, C. & A. R. R. v., 58 111. 
 
 226 69 
 
 C. B. & Q. R R. v., 58 111. 
 
 272 308 
 
 v. Piper, 9 B.&C.591, 17 E. 
 C. L. 386, 387 
 
 Grethen v. C. M. & St. P. R. R., 
 U. S. C. C. District of 
 Minn., 19 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 342 94, 192 
 
 Gretzner, C. & A. R. R. v., 46 
 
 111. 76 54, 427 
 
 Greer, Pittsburg v., 22 Penna. St. 
 
 54 39, 390
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xrvii 
 
 Grier v. Sampson, 27 Penna St. 
 
 183 148 
 
 Griffen v. Colver, 16 N. Y. 489 460 
 Griffiths y. Earl of Dudley, 9 Q. 
 
 B. D. 357 383, 410, 509 
 
 v. Gidlow, 3 H. & N. 648 373 
 v. L. & St. K. Docks Co., 12 
 Q. B. D. 493, 13 Id. 259 344 
 Griffin, W. & T. P. R. P. v., 57 
 
 Penna. St. 417 135 
 
 Grizzle v. Frost, 3 F. & F. 622 320 
 Griggs, Christie v., 2 Camp. 79 
 
 232 439 
 _ v. Houston, 104 U. S. 553 ' 293 
 Grill v. Iron Screw C. Co., L. R. 
 
 1 C. P. 612 6, 8 
 
 Grote v. C. & H. Ry., 2 Ex. 251 
 
 217, 236, 237, 240 
 G. R. & I. Ry. v. Showers, 71 Ind. 
 451, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas 9 342 
 
 v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537 
 
 237, 276, 417, 426 
 v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526 235, 240 
 Geveke v., Mich. , 22 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 551 151, 154, 474 
 
 G. R. R., Wright v., 34 Ga. 337 447 
 v. Thomas, 68 Ga. 744 151 
 
 v. Newsome. 60 Ga. 492, 66 
 
 Id. 57 151, 416 
 
 Baston v., 60 Ga. 340 190 
 
 v. Rhodes, 56 Ga. 645 
 
 15, 62, 376 
 Grush, T. W. & W. R. R. v., 67 
 
 111. 262 254 
 
 Grant, Twycross v., 4 C. P. D. 40 398 
 G. R. R. & B. Co. v. McCurdy, 
 
 45 Ga. 288 286, 2S7 
 
 v. Oaks, 52 Ga. 410 375 
 
 G. R. & I. R. R., Haas v., 47 
 Mich. 401, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 268 163, 169, 171 
 Gruber v. W. & J. R. R.. 92 N. 
 C. 1, 21 Am.&Eng.R. R. 
 Cas. 438 43, 136, 275 
 
 Griswoldu. C. & N. W. Ry., 
 
 Whc. , 23 Am. & Eng. 
 R.R. Cas. 463 220 
 
 Grows v. M. ('. R. K,, 67 Me. 100 171 
 G. S. Navigation Co.. Dowel! v., 
 5 E.& B. 195,85 E. C. L. 
 
 52, 54 
 G.S. & V,'. By., Nichollsr., 7 Ir. 
 
 C. L. 40 262 
 
 Falkner v., 5 I. C. L. 213 283 
 G. St. &, N. R. R., Gordon v., 40 
 
 Mark 546 213 
 
 G. St. R. R. v. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 
 
 70 91 
 
 G. S. & W. Rv., Condon v , 16 
 
 Irish C. L. 415 489 
 
 G. T. Rv., Bennett v., 3 Ont. C. 
 P. D. 446, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 627 160, 161 
 
 v. Cummings, 106 U. S. 700 337 
 Dunn v., 58 Me. 187 
 
 210, 233, 286, 292 
 Fillibrowne v., 55 Me. 462 501 
 Holyoke v., 48 N. H. 541 421 
 Frost v., 10 Allen 387 103, 270 
 Goddard v., 57 Me. 202 114, 471 
 v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655 
 
 4, 205, 501, 503 
 Taylor v., 48 N. H. 229, 304 
 
 233, 418, 472 
 Torpy v., 20 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 
 
 446 211 
 
 "Williamson v., 17 Up. Can. 
 
 (C. P.) 615 . 25 
 
 Vars v., 23 Up. Can. (C. P.; 
 
 143 152 
 
 Paine v., 58 N. H. 611 156 
 
 Stott v., 24 Up. Can. (C. P.) 
 
 347 15 l 
 
 Worthen v., 125 Mass. 99 282 
 State v., 58 Me. 176 214, 436 
 Jewell v., 55 N. H. 84 
 
 103, 370, 371 
 Jones v., 45 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 
 
 193 38 
 
 Klanowski v., Mich. , 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 648 159, 427 
 
 Needham v., 38 Vt. 294 486 
 
 Peart v., 10 Ont. Ap. 191, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 239 160 
 
 Rosenberger v., 8 Ont. Ap. 
 482, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 448, 9 S. C. of Can. 
 311, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 8 160, 161 
 
 Gudger v. W. N. C. R. R., 87 N. 
 
 C. 325 150 
 
 Guinan, L. N. & G. S. R. R. v., 11 
 
 Lea(Tenn.)98 471 
 
 Gumz v. C. M & St. P. Ry , 52 
 Wise. 672, 5 Am. & En;?. 
 R. R. Cas. 583 1 2, 383 
 
 Gunter v. G. Mfg. Co., 18 S. C. 
 
 262 329 
 
 Oust, Hill v., 55 Ind. 45 338 
 
 Guthrie v. L. & N. R. R., 1 1 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 372, 15 Am & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 209 307 
 
 Gnrlev, E. T. V. & G. R. R. v., 
 12 Lea (Tenn.) 46, 17 
 & Ent;-. R. R. ( 'as. 568 
 
 15, 62,31 :, 366
 
 xlviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Guggenheim v. L. S. & M. S. 
 Ry., Mich. , 22 Am. 
 &Eng. R. R. Cas. 546 163, 447 
 Gullett. ( ). & M. R. R. v., 15 Ind. 
 
 487 256 
 
 G. W. Ry., Bird v., 28 L. J. Ex. 
 
 3 439 
 
 v. Blake, 7 II. & 1ST. 037 138 
 Bradburn v., L. R. 10 Ex. 1 
 
 474, 494 
 v. Braid, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 
 101, 9 Jur. N. S. 339 
 
 31, 32, 240, 440 
 Brown v., 40 Up. Can. Q. B. 
 333, 2 Ont. Ap. Cas. 64, 3 
 Can. S. C. 159 221 
 
 Hay v., 37 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 
 
 456 2S3 
 
 Burgess v., 6 C. B. K S. 923, 
 
 95 E. C. L 253 
 
 Haldan v., 30 Up. Can. (C. 
 
 P.) 89 265 
 
 Austin v., L. E. 2 Q. B. 442 
 
 205, 390 
 Fitzpatrick v., 12 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 645 29, 292 
 
 Purnell v. (mentioned by 
 Hellish L. J., in 2 C. P. 
 
 D. 210) 103 
 Siner v., L. R. 3 Ex. 150, 4 
 
 Id. 117 18, 21, 63, 270 
 
 Sutherland v., 7 Up. Can. 
 
 (C. P.) 409 502 
 
 Williams v., L. R. 9 Ex. 157 
 
 28,41 
 Woodger v., L. R. 2 C. P. 
 
 318 462 
 
 Wvatt v., 6 B. & S. 709, 118 
 
 E. C L. 34 L. J. (Q. B.) 
 204 20, 21, 37, 54, 63 
 
 Watkins v., 37 L. T. N. S. 
 
 193 259 
 
 James v., L. R. 2 C. P. 634, 
 
 note 165 
 
 Longmore v., 19 C. B. N. S. 
 
 183, 115 E C. L. 253 
 
 Nicholls v., 27 Up. Can. (Q. 
 
 B.) 382 86 
 
 v. Redmavne, L. R. 1 C. P. 
 
 329 * 460, 461 
 
 Graham v., 41 Up. Can. (Q. 
 
 B.) 324 240 
 
 Ellis v., L. R. 9 0. P. 551 423 
 G. W. R, R., Hawkins »., 17 
 
 Mich. 57, 18 Id. 427 502 
 
 v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305 108 
 
 G. W. Cotton Co., Britten v., L. 
 
 R. 7 Ex. 130 41, 304 
 
 G. W. & S. Rv , Johnson v., 9 
 
 Irish Rep., C. L. 108 502 
 
 G. & C, St. P. By. r. Bresmer, 
 
 97 Penna. St. 103 349, 373 
 G. & C. U. R. R. v. Jacobs, 20 
 
 111. 478 60 
 
 G. & C. R. R. R. v. Dill, 22 111. 
 
 264 157 
 
 Haas v. G. R. & I. R. R, 47 
 Midi. 401, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R.R. Cas. 268 163, 169, 171 
 Hacket, Little v., 116 U. S. 366 103 
 Hadlev v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 460 
 v. "Taylor, L. R. 1 C. P. 53 148 
 Hall, I., B. & W. R. R. v., 106 
 111. 371, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 146 277 
 
 I. C. R. R. v., 72 HI. 222 190 
 v. Johnson, 3 H. & C. 589 356 
 L. V. R. R. v., 61 Penna. St. 
 
 361 174, 441, 444 
 
 v. M. P. Ry., 74 Mo. 298, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 106 329, 369 
 
 v. N E. Ry., L. R. 10 Q. B. 
 
 437 500, 502 
 
 Elliott v., 15 Q. B. D. 315 202 
 v. Smith, 2 Bing. 156 122 
 
 v. N. J. S. N. Co., 15 Conn. 
 
 539 502 
 
 v. U. P. Ry., 16 Fed. Rep. 
 744 308 
 
 Hagan, P. & T. R. R. v., 47 
 
 Penna. St. 244 163, 174 
 
 Hagertv, Godley v., 20 Penna. 
 
 St. 387 200 
 
 Hahn v. S. P. Ry., 51 Cal. 605 152 
 Haynes, Adams Ex. Co. v., 42 111. 
 
 89 502 
 
 Haldan v. G. W. Ry., 30 Up. 
 
 Can. (C. P.) 89 265 
 
 Haley, M. P. Rv. v., 25 Kans. 35, 
 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 594 299, 319, 383 
 
 Halloren, I. & G. N. R. R. v., 53 
 Tex. 46, 3 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 343 
 ^ 31, 32, 233, 240, 246 
 
 Halm, ArSour v., Ill U. S. 313 356 
 Halli'day, Longmeid v., 6 Ex. • 
 731 412 
 
 Haley v. C. & N. W. R. R., 21 
 
 Iowa 15 26 
 
 Hallihan v. H. & St. J. R. R., 71 
 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 117 
 
 35, 283, 299, 344, 374 
 Haigh, Marsdon v., 14 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 526 373 
 
 Hamlin v. G. N. Ry., 1 H. & N. 
 
 408 460
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xlix 
 
 Hamilton v. D. M. V. Ey., 36 
 
 Iowi St. 31 346 
 
 v. Godding, 55 Me. 428 65 
 
 v. McPherson, 28 N. Y. 72 460 
 v. Third Ave. E. E., 53 N. 
 
 Y. 25 471 
 
 v. N. Y. C. E. E., 51 N. Y. 
 
 100 416 
 
 v, G. H. & S. A. Ey., 54 Tex. 
 
 556, 4 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 528 341 
 
 v. T. & P. Ey., 64 Tex. 251, 
 
 21 Am. & "Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 336 220 
 
 Hammersley, O. & M. E. E. v., 
 
 28 Ind. 371 76, 418 
 
 Hampton, H. & T. C. Ey. v., 64 
 
 Tex. 427, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 291 216, 376 
 
 Hanlan v. E. E. E., 114 Mass. 44 139 
 Hagenlocker v. C. I. & B. E. E., 
 
 99 N. Y. 136 417 
 
 Hammack v. White, 11 C. B. K 
 
 S. 588, 103 E. C. L. 35, 434 
 Hammond v. N. E. Ey., 6 S. C. 
 
 130 216 
 
 Hanning, N. O., M. & C. E. E. v., 
 
 15 Wall. 649 123, 201 
 
 Hanlon, G. St. E. E. v., 53 Ala. 
 
 70 91 
 
 Hand, Simpson v., 6 Wh. 311 
 
 47, 81, 86 
 U. P. E. E. v., 7 Kans. 392 233 
 Hardisty, Wheelton v., 8 E. & Bl. 
 
 232, 92 E. C. L. 454 
 
 Hard v. C. Ey., 32 Vt. 473 366 
 
 Hardcastle v. S. Y. Ey., 4 H. & 
 
 N. 67 183 
 
 Hardy v. N. C. C. E. E., 74 N. C. 
 
 734 303 
 
 Hanson v. E. & N. E. E., 62 Me. 
 
 84 114 
 
 Hankey, Penna Co. v., 93 111. 580 
 
 302, 376 
 Hanrathy v. N. C. Ey., 46 Md. 
 
 280 307 
 
 Hand v. V. & C. E. E., 32 Vt. 473 356 
 Hardin, T. & P. E. E. v., 62 Tex. 
 
 367, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 460 240 
 
 Harmon, T. W. & W. Ey. v., 47 
 
 111. 298 151 
 
 Haring, N. Y., L. E. & W. E. E. 
 
 v., 47 N. J. L. 137, 21 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 436 43 
 
 Harlan v. St. L., K. C. & N. E. 
 
 E., 61 Mo. 480, 65 Mo. 22 
 
 55, 190 
 Hardingham, Coupland v., 3 
 
 Camp. 398 148 
 
 Hardman, GolcUhorpe v., 13 M 
 
 & W. 377 148 
 
 Hart v. Allen, 2 Watts 116 9 
 
 v. C, E. I. & P. Ey., 56 Iowa 
 
 166 161 
 
 Hartfield v. Eoper, 21 Wend. 6l5 91 
 
 Hartnall v. Byde Commrs., 4 B. 
 
 &S. 361, 116 E. C. L. 200 
 Hartwig v. C. & N. W. Ey., 49 
 Wise. 358, 1 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 65 253 
 
 Harty v. C. E. E., 42 N. Y. 468 160 
 Harris, Proctor v., 4 C. & P. 337, 
 
 19 E. C. L. 148 
 
 v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79 213 
 
 v. U. P. R E., 13 Fed. Rep. 
 
 591, 4 McCrary 457 38 
 
 B. S. E. E. v., 67 Ala. 6 473 
 
 D. & G. Ey. v., New. Mex. 
 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 142 HI 
 
 Harrison, G. K Ey. v., 10 Ex. 376 
 
 206, 390 
 v. Collins, 86 Penna. St. 
 
 153 126 
 
 v. G. N. Ey., 3 H. & C. 231 39, 95 
 Harper v. E. E. E., 32 N. J. L. 
 
 88, 3 Vroom 88 47, 264 
 
 St. L., 1. M. & S. Ey. v., 44 
 Ark. 524 306 
 
 Harvey v. E. E. E., 116 Mass. 269 
 
 260, 264 
 v. N. Y. C.&H.E.E. E., 88 
 N. Y. 481, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 515 318, 338 
 
 Hassard, P. C. P. Ey. v., 75 Penna. 
 
 St. 367 t>8, 291, 454 
 
 Hathaway, Malone v., 64 N. Y. 
 
 5 321 
 
 Hause, U. P. E. E. v., 1 Wyoming 
 
 27 122 
 
 Hawks, A. G. S. Ey. v., 72 Ala. 
 112, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 197 
 
 160, 251, 265, 284, 416 
 Hawker, Mill v., L. E. 9 Ex. 309, 
 
 10 Id. 92 111 
 
 Hawkins v.G. W. E. E., 17 Mich. 
 
 57, 18 Id. 427 502 
 
 Hay v. G. W. Ey., 37 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 456 283 
 
 Hays v. H. G. N. E. E., 46 Tex. 
 
 280 112 
 
 Hayes v. Kennedy, 41 Penna. St. 
 
 378 31 
 
 v. Gallagher, 72 Penna. St. 
 
 136 148 
 
 v. M. C.E. E.,111 U.S. 228, 
 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 394 27, 41, 198, 4&»
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Haves v. W. R. R., 3 Cush. 270 356 
 F. S. &G. St. P. R.R. v., 97 
 
 N. Y. 259. 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R.R. Cas.' 358 291 
 
 Havward, Allen v., 7 Q. B. 960, 
 
 53 E. C. L. 122 
 
 Kendall v., 5 Bing. N. C. -124 476 
 Hazard, (J., B. & Q. R. R. v., 26 
 
 111. 373 288, 292 
 
 v. C, B. & Q. R. R., 1 Biss. 
 
 503 288 
 
 Havcroft v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 64 
 
 N. Y. 636 71 
 
 Hanlon v. S. B. H. R. R., 129 
 
 Mass. 310, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 18 42 
 
 Hatfield v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 
 
 61 Iowa 434, 11 Am. & 
 
 Eng R. R. Cas. 153 48 
 
 Hawes «. B. C. R. & N. R. R., 64 
 
 Iowa 315, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 220 436, 508 
 
 Hawley v. N. C. Ry., 82 N. Y. 
 
 370, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 248 305, 375, 3S2 
 
 Haynes v. E. T. & G. R. R., 3 
 
 Cold. (Tenn.) 222 355 
 
 Hathaway v. M. C. R. R., 51 Mich. 
 
 253, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 249 346, 373 
 
 Harney, C. & G. E. R. R. v., 28 
 
 Ind. 28 342, 350 
 
 Harrington, T. & P. Ry. v., 62 Tex. 
 
 597, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 571 315, 344 
 
 Haslan v. M. & E. R. R., 4 Vroom. 
 
 147 168 
 
 Hatcher v. T. W. & W. R. R., 62 
 
 111. 477 135 
 
 Hatfield v. St. P. & D. Ry., 33 
 
 Minn. 130, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 292 424 
 
 Harper v. I. & St. L. R. R., 44 
 
 Mo. 488 315 
 
 H. B. M. & F. R. R., Thurber v., 
 
 60 N. Y. 326 69 
 
 Heazle v. I. B. & W. Ry., 76 111. 
 
 501 440 
 
 Head, L. N. A. & C. R. R. v., 80 
 
 Ind. 117, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 619 157, 162, 196 
 Hearn, Child v., L. R. 9 Ex. 176 
 
 81, 86 
 Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q. B. D. 
 
 507 7, 200, 202, 224 
 
 Heeman, Towanda Coal Co. v., 86 
 
 Penna. St. 418 109,115 
 
 Heaven, Aston v., 2 Esp. 533 35 
 
 Hedges, Ivay v., 9 Q. B. D. 80 177 
 Heeney v. Sprague, 11 R. I. 456 42 
 
 Hegeman v. Western R. R., 13 N. 
 
 Y. 9 2:57, 240, 240 
 
 Heil v. Glanding, 42 Penna. St. 
 
 493 47, 56, 60 
 
 P. & R. R. R. v., 5 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 91 74, 434 
 
 Heilman, N. P. R. R. v., 49 Penna. 
 
 St. 60 168 
 
 Heine v. C. & N.W. Ry., 58 Wise. 
 
 528 327, 366 
 
 Hemmingway, Sproul v., 14 Pick. 
 
 1 103 
 
 Hemingway v. McCullough, 15 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 328 102 
 
 Henderson, P. R. R. v., 43 Penna. 
 St. 449, 51 Id. 315 
 
 50, 205, 254, 422, 491, 501 
 P. C. & St. L. Ry. v., Ohio 
 St. , 5 Am. & Eng. R R. 
 Cas. 529 317 
 
 v. Stevens, L. R. 3 H. L. Sc. 
 & Div. 470 501 
 
 Hendricks v. S. A. R. R., 44 N. 
 
 Y. Sup. Ct. 8 281 
 
 J. R. R. v., 26 Ind. 228 
 
 47, 63, 265 
 v. W. & A. R. R., 52 Ga. 467 
 
 60, 510 
 Hendrie, Downey v., 46 Mich. 
 498, 8 Am. & Eng. R R. 
 Cas. 386 291 
 
 Henley v. H. R. R., 1 Edm. S. C. 
 
 359 240 
 
 Henry, v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 
 49 Mich. 495, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 110 
 
 299, 366, 434 
 v. P. & A. Bridge Co., 8 W. 
 
 & S. 85 146 
 
 v. S. I. Ry., 81 N. Y. 373, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas.. 60 
 
 307, 318, 368 
 v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 76 
 Mo. 288, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cus. 136 26, 283 
 
 Henlock, Sadler v., 4 El. & Bl. 
 
 570, 82 E. C. L. 123 
 
 Herchenroder, Salisbury v., 106 
 
 Mass 458 42 
 
 Herbert v. N. P. Ry., Dak. , 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 85, 116 U. S. 642 307, 331 
 
 Hester, I. & G. N. R. R. v., 64 
 Tex. 401, 21 Am. & ling. 
 R. R. Cas. 535 349 
 
 Hetherington v. N. E. Ry.. 9 Q. 
 
 B. D. 160 489 
 
 Hewitt, Rigby v ■ 5 Ex. 240 82
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 li 
 
 Hexamer v. Webb, 101 TS. Y. 877 
 
 122, 125 
 Hey v. Philadelphia, 2 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 466 39 
 
 Henigh, C. B. & P. E. B. v., 23 
 
 Kans. 347 73 
 
 Heenrich v. P. P. P. Co., 20 Fed. 
 Eep. 100, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 379 109 
 
 Hendrie, Kelly v., 26 Mich. 255 88 
 Henks, \V. E. E. v., 91 111. 406 160 
 Herring v. W. & E. E. E., 10 
 
 lred. 402 74, 192, 193 
 
 Hensil, Penna. Co. v., 70 Ind. 569, 
 6 Am. & Eng. E.E. ("as. 79 
 
 162, 164, 447 
 Ilenze v. St. L., K. C. & N. E. E.. 
 71 Mo. 636, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 212 169, 173 
 
 Henrice, P. C. P. Ey. v., 92 
 Penna. St. 431, 4 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 544 195, 419 
 Hendrv, Vanderbeck v., 34 N. J. 
 
 L. 472 177 
 
 Herrmann v. N. O. & C. E. E., 
 
 11 La. An. 5 398 
 
 H. G. N. E. E., Havs v., 46 Tex. 
 
 280 112 
 
 Hiatt, E. & C. E. E. v., 17 Ind. 
 
 102 37, 50 
 
 Hibbard v. N. Y. & E. E. E., 15 
 
 N. Y. 455 215, 250 
 
 Hice v. Kugler, 6 Wh. 336 47 
 
 Hicks v. N. A. & H. Ey., 4 B. & 
 
 S. 403 n. 116 E. C. L. 494 
 
 Hickey v. B. & L. E. E., 14 Allen 
 
 429 265, 284 
 
 Higgins, H. & St. J. E. E. v., 36 
 
 Mo. 418 47, 211, 286 
 
 v. Bucher, Yelv. 89 397 
 
 St. L, I.M. & S. E. E. v., 
 44 Ark. 293, 21 Am. & . 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 629 303 
 
 v. W. T. & E. E., 46 N. Y. 
 23 109 
 
 Hill, Corby v., 4 C. B. N. S. 556, 
 
 93 E. C. L. 200 
 
 v. N. E. Co., 9 B. & S. 303 39, 95 
 v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45 338 
 
 Hilliard v. Eichardson, 3 Gray 
 
 349 122 
 
 Hills, Catlin v., 8 C. B. 123, 65 
 
 E. C. L. 80, 86 
 
 Hilts v. C. & G. T. Ey., 55 Mich. 
 437, 17 Am. & Eng. E.E. 
 Cas. 628 315 
 
 Highland St. Ey., Day v., 135 
 Mass. 113, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 150 65 
 
 Hinckley v. C. C. E. E., 120 Mass. 
 
 262 436 
 
 Hinds, P. F. W. & C. E. E. v., 53 
 
 Penna. St. 512 39, 280 
 
 Hinton v. Dibbin, 2 Ad. & El. N. 
 
 S. 661, 42 E. C. L. 8 
 
 Hirschfeld i>. L. B. & S. C. Ey., 
 
 2 Q. B. D. 1 508 
 
 H. M. & F. Ey. v. Connell, 88 
 
 Penna. St. 520 ^ 188, 196 
 Crissey v.. 75 Penna. St. 83 
 
 68, 454 
 v. Gray, 3 Weekly Notes of 
 
 Cases (Penna.) 421 68 
 
 v. Kelley, 102 Penna. St. 
 
 115 35,74, 111 
 
 Smith v., 92 Penna. St. 450 76 
 Hoagland, Penna. Co. v., 78 Ind. 
 203, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 436 262, 263, 467 
 
 Hoag v. L. S. & M. S. E. E., 85 
 
 Penna. St. 293 12, 13 
 
 Hoar v. M. C Ev., 70 Me. 65 
 
 188, 210 
 Hobbitt v. L. & N. W. Ey., 4 Ex. 
 
 243 97, 102, 120 
 
 Hobbs v. L. & S. W. Ey., L. E. 
 
 10 Q. B. Ill 
 
 2-1 , 263, 390, 459, 463 
 B. & O. E. E. v., Md. 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 337 169 
 
 Hodsoll v. Stallebrass, 11 Ad. & 
 
 El. 301, 39 E. C. L. 473 
 
 Hodgkins v. E. E. E., 119 Mass. 
 
 419 303 
 
 Hoehl, P. & M. E. E., 12 Bush. 
 
 (Ky.) 41 70 
 
 Hoffman v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. 
 
 E., 75 N. Y. 605 253 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 
 
 44 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1 445 
 
 N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E. v., 
 87 N. Y. 25, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 537 109, 189 
 
 I. C. E. E. v., 67 111. 287 224 
 Hogan r. C. M. & St. P. Ey.. 59 
 Wise. 139, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 439 74, 167, 454 
 v. S. E. Ey., 28 L. T. N. S. 
 271 281 
 
 Hofna^le v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. 
 
 E., 55 N. Y. 608 122 
 
 Holbrook v. U. & S. E. E., 12 N. 
 
 Y. 236 284. 434, 443 
 
 Hoke v. St. L., K. C.^& N.' Ky., 
 
 11 Mo. App. 575 368 
 Holden v. F. E. E., 129 Mass. 
 
 268, 2 Am. & Erg. E. E. 
 Cas. 94 306, 363, 367
 
 Hi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Holdeu v. L. N. G. & C. Co., 3 
 
 M. G. & S. 1, 54 E. C. L. 47 
 Hole v. S. & S. Ry., 6 H. & N. 
 
 4S8 126 
 
 Holbrook, Corcoran v., 59 N. Y. 
 
 517 320 
 
 Bird v., 4 Bing. 628, 15 E. C. 
 
 L 39 183 
 
 Meara »., 20 Ohio St. 137 ' 137 
 Hollahau, Lewis v., 103 Penna. 
 
 St. 425 495 
 
 Holland, Ormond v., El., Bl. & 
 
 El. 102, 96 E. C. L. 297 
 
 v. C. M. & St. P. Ky., 18 
 
 Fed. Kep. 243 375 
 
 Holt, Churchill v., 127 Mass. 165 394 
 Holly v. Boston Gas Light Co., 
 
 8 Gray 123 91 
 
 Holyoke v. G. T. R. R., 48 N. H. 
 
 541 421 
 
 Holmes v. Clark, 6 H. & N. 349, 
 
 7 H. & N. 937 
 
 300, 329, 356, 382 
 C. C. E. R. v., 5 Colo. 197, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 410 54 
 
 v. Mather, L. R. 10 Ex. 261 389 
 v. Onion, 2 C B. N. S. 790, 
 
 89 E. C. L. 103 
 
 v. N. E. Rv., L. R. 4 Ex. 
 
 254, 6 Id. 123 223, 372 
 
 v. Wakefield, 12 Allen 580 108 
 v. Worthington, 2 F. & F. 
 533 300 
 
 Hodges v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 
 71 Mo. 50, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 190 160, 161 
 
 Hogarth, C. & A. R. R. v., 38 111. 
 
 370 193 
 
 Houck, I. C. Ry. v., 72 111. 285 
 
 299, 306, 446 
 Holt, A., T. & S. F. R. R. v., 29 
 Kans. 149, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 206 303, 337 
 
 Homan v. Stanley, 66 Penna. St. 
 
 464 148 
 
 Honor v. Albrighton, 93 Penna. 
 
 St. 475 356 
 
 Hope, P. R. R. v., 80 Penna. St. 
 
 373 13 39 
 
 Hopkins, M. & O. R. R. v., 41 ' 
 
 Ala. N. S. 489 502, 503 
 
 v. A. & St. L. R. R., 36 
 N. H. 9 471 
 
 Hoppe v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 61 
 Wise. 357, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 74 77, 197, 425 
 
 Hoosey, C. & A. R. R. v., 99 
 Penna. St. 492, 6 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 254 284 
 
 Home v. Midland Ry., L. R. 8 
 
 C. P. 131 460, 462 
 
 Riley v., 5 Bing. 217 498 
 
 Smith v., 8 Taunt. 144, 4 E. 
 
 C. L. 7 
 
 Horn, Cuddy v., 46 Mich. 596 413 
 
 Hood v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R., 22 
 
 Conn. 1, 23 Id. 609 44, 139 
 Houser v. C, R. I. & P. R R., 60 
 Iowa 230, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 501 306 
 
 Hoven v. B. & M. R. R., 20 Iowa 
 
 562 374 
 
 Hoye v. C. & N.W. Ry., 62 Wise. 
 666, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 347 168, 454 
 
 Horst, I. & St. L. R. R. v., 93 U. 
 
 S. 291 204, 233, 286, 292, 436 
 P. R. R. v., 16 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 567 151, 155 
 Hounsell v. Smvth, 7 C. B. N. S. 
 
 731, 97 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Houston, G, R. I. & P. R. R. v., 
 
 95 U. S. 697 168, 169, 172 
 
 Hough v. T. & P. Ry., 100 U. S. 
 
 213 300,306,329,330,369,382 
 Houston, Griggs v., 104 U. S. 
 
 553 293 
 
 Howard Ex. Co. v.Wile, 64 Penna. 
 
 St. 201 454 
 
 Howe, V. & M. R. R. v., 52 Miss. 
 
 202 241 
 
 Howell, Lovell d,1C.P.D. 161 356 
 Howells v. L. S. Steel Co., L. R. 
 
 10 Q. B. 62 321 
 
 Howland v. Vincent, 10 Mete. 
 
 371 148 
 
 v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 54 
 Wise. 226, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 578 349, 368 
 
 Howard v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 
 32 Minn. 214, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 283 166 
 
 L. & N. R. R. v., Ky. , 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 98 190, 192 
 
 Howd v. M. C. R. R., 50 Miss. 178 
 
 301 314 
 H. R. R , Henley v., 1 Edm. S. C.' 
 
 359 240 
 
 Jones v., 107 Mass. 261 152 
 
 Snow v., 8 Allen 441 
 
 221, 305, 372, 377 
 v. Coyle, 55 Penna. St. 396 
 
 168, 416 
 Gannon v., 112 Mass. 234 372 
 Wilds v., 24 N. Y. 230, 432 
 
 60, 436 
 Webster v., 38 N. Y. 260 86 
 
 Ernst v., 39 N. Y. 61 173
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 liii 
 
 BL R. R. R., Button v., 18 N. Y. 
 
 248 54, 436 
 
 Luby v., 17 N.Y. 131 416 
 
 Johnson v, 20 N. Y. 65, 5 
 
 Duer 27 54, 436 
 
 Priest r., 65 N. Y. 589 114 
 
 Russell v., 17 N. Y. 134 211, 356 
 Mooney v., 5 Robertson (N. 
 
 Y.) 548 86 
 
 O'Mara v., 38 N. Y. 445 163, 167 
 Wilds v., 29 N. Y. 315 146, 159 
 Von Schaick v., 43 N. Y. 527 283 
 Green v., 2 Reyes (N.Y.) 
 294 398 
 
 H. Ry., Brand v., L. R. 1 Q. B. 
 130, 2 Id. 223, L. R. 4 H. 
 L. 171 146 
 
 H. St. Ry., Banks v., 136 Mass. 
 485, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 139 65, 111 
 
 H. S. R. R., Galena v., 13 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 116 114 
 
 Hubbard, Marshall v., 117 U. S. 
 
 415 454 
 
 Hudelson, I. C. R. R., 13 Ind. 325 
 
 213, 257 
 Hubvner v. N. O. & C. R. R., 23 
 
 La. An. 492 265 
 
 Hudson v. L. & N. R. R., 14 Bush 
 
 (Ky.) 303 153 
 
 Hughes v. Boyer, 9 Watts 556 
 
 102, 454 
 v. C. & S. Ry., 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 100, and 
 note, 39 Ohio St. 461 122, 125 
 v. Macfie, 2 H. & C. 744 
 
 39, 95, 187 
 C.V.R. R. v., 11 Penna. St. 
 
 140 14S 
 
 N. O., J. & N. Ry. v., 49 Miss. 
 
 258 314, 363 
 
 v. N.Y. & N. H. R. R., 36 
 
 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222 445 
 
 v.W.&St.P.R.R.,27Minn. 
 137 343, 344 
 
 Hulburt v. N. Y. C. R. R, 40 N. 
 
 Y. 145 253 
 
 Hulett v. St. L., K. C. & N. Rv., 
 
 67 Mo. 239 303, 376 
 
 Hulsencamp v. C. R. R., 37 Mo. 
 
 537 54 
 
 Hummell, P. & R. R. R. v., 44 
 Penna. St. 375 
 
 190,191,190,434 
 Humphrey, Gallagher v., 6 L. T. 
 
 N. S. 684 178 
 
 Schmid v., 48 Iowa 652 65 
 
 Hunt v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 Iowa 
 
 363 356 
 
 v. P. R. R., 51 Penna. St. 475 1 25 
 
 Huntlev, G. R. & I. R. R. v., 38 
 
 Mich. 537 237, 276, 417, 426 
 Hunter, Scott v., 46 Penna. St. 
 
 192 39 
 
 v. Stewart, 47 Me. 419 25 
 
 v. Wanamaker, 17 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 232 (Pa. C. C. JR. ) 12 
 
 M. & C. R. R. v., 11 Wise. 
 
 160 156 
 
 Husson, N. C. Ry. v., 13 Weekly 
 
 ISotes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 361, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 241 346 
 
 Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. Ry., 5 
 
 Ex. 343 342, 351, 355. 357, 366 
 v. W. & A. R. R., 53 Tenn. 
 
 634 43, 413 
 
 I. C. R. R. v., 47 111. 408 74, 192 
 v. St. P.. M. & M. Ry.. 32 
 
 Minn. 398, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 280 166, 169 
 
 Borries v., 18 C. B. K S. 445, 
 
 114 E. C. L. 460 
 
 Huzzey v. Field, 2 C. M. & R. 
 
 432 106 
 
 Humphreys, E. T. V. & G. R. R. 
 
 v., 12 Lea (Tenn.) 200, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 472 196 
 
 Huffman, C, R. I. & P. Rv. v., 78 
 
 Mo. 50, 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 625 314, 315. 318 
 
 L. & I. Ry. v., 28 Ind. 287 91 
 Hubgh v. N. O. & C. R. R., 6 La. 
 
 An. 495 306, 374, 398 
 
 Hurst, N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v., 
 
 36 Miss. 660 467, 471 
 
 v. Taylor, 14 Q. B. D. 918 149 
 Huey, D."& B. J. Ry., 5 Irish C. 
 
 L. 206 373 
 
 Hurt v. S. R. R., 40 Miss. 391 
 
 204, 207 
 Hyatt r. Johnson, 91 Penna. St. 
 
 196 454 
 
 Hydraulic Works v. Orr, 83 
 
 Penna. St. 332 184, 196 
 
 Hyman v. Nye, 6 Q. B. D. 685 233 
 Hynes v. S. F. & N. P. R. R., 65 
 
 Cal. 316, 20 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 486 28, 198 
 
 H. & B. T. R. R. v. Decker, 82 
 
 Penna. St. 119, 84 Id. 419 
 
 314, 330, 445, 491 
 H. & G. N. R. R. v. Miller, 
 
 51 Tex. 270 338, 341 
 
 V. Randall, 50 Tex. 254 305 
 
 H. & St. J. R. R., Bell v., 72 Mo. 
 
 50, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 580 111, 160, 193, 447
 
 liv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 H. & St. J. R. R. v. iliggins, 36 
 
 Mo. -US 47, 211, 286 
 
 Kelley v., 70 Mo. 604 263 
 
 Loyd v., 53 Mo. 509 264, 424 
 Limekeiler v., 33 Kans. 83, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 184 410 
 
 Porter v., 71 Mo. 66, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 44 
 
 304, 305, 329, 473, 474 
 Truitt v., 62 Mo. 527 34 
 
 Sherman v., 72 Mo. 62, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 589 73, 115, 209, 210, 
 
 212, 283, 370, 371 
 Snyder v., 60 Mo. 413 74 
 
 Sweigert v., 75 Mo. 475, 9 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 322 263, 436 
 
 Prv v., 73 Mo. 123 470 
 
 Winters v., 39 Mo. 468 285 
 
 McDermott v., 73 Mo. 516, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 
 
 85 314, 330, 416 
 
 v. Fox, 31 Kans. 587, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 325 370 
 Price v., 77 Mo. 5U8, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168 377 
 Adams v., 74 Mo. 553, 7 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 414 416 
 Cagney v., 69 Mo. 416 301 
 
 Sawver v., 37 Mo. 240 35. 235 
 Haflihan v., 71 Mo. 113, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R, Cas. 
 
 117 35, 2S3, 299, 344, 374 
 
 Kelley v., 75 Mo. 138, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 
 
 638 42, 168, 173, 174 
 
 Isabel v., 60 Mo. 482 55, 77 
 
 Isabel v., 65 Mo. 475 196 
 
 v. Martin, 11 Bradwell 386 213 
 Scoville v., 81 Mo. 434, 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 534 55 
 
 Turner v., 74 Mo. 603, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38 
 
 135, 169 
 Welsch v., 72 Mo. 551, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 75 163 
 
 Zimmerman v., 71 Mo. 476, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 191 55, 75 
 
 Brown v., 50 Mo. 461 196 
 
 v. Clotworthy, 80 Mo. 220, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 371 263, 264 
 
 H. & T. C. Ry. v. Sympkins, 54 
 
 Tex. 615, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 11 196 
 
 PAGE 
 
 H. &T. C. Ry. v. Hampton, 64 
 
 Tex. X-ll, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 291 216, 376 
 
 v. Schmidt, 61 Tex. 282, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 345 265 
 
 v. Maddox, Tex. , 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 625 307 
 v. Clennnons, 55 Tex. 88, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 396 286 
 
 v. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181 303 
 
 v. Gorbett, 49 Tex. 573 47, 60 
 v. Myers, 55 Tex. 1 10, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 114 
 
 314, 346, 374 
 v. Leslie, 57 Tex. 83, 9 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 384 265 
 v. Shafer, 54 Tex. 641, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 421 417 
 
 v. Willie, 53 Tex. 318 367 
 
 Watson v., 58 Tex. 434, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 213 345, 346 
 
 Robinson v., 46 Tex. 540 
 
 356, 373 
 v. Pinto, 60 Tex. 516, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 286 305 
 v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 231 329, 369 
 
 v. Rider, 62 Tex. 267, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 5^3 n. 268 
 
 r. Fowler, 56 Tex. 452, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 504 32 
 
 v. Waller, 56 Tex. 331, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 431 74 
 v. Ricbards, 59 Tex. 373, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 70 191 
 H. & T. Ry. v. Oram, 49 Tex. 341 308 
 L, B. & W. R. R. v. Hall, 106 
 
 111. 371, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R R. Cas. 146 277 
 
 Heazle v., 76 111. 501 440 
 
 v. Toy, 91 III. 474 306 
 
 v. Burdge, 94 Ind. 46, 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 192 109 
 v. Flanigan, 77 111. 365 302, 303 
 1. C. R. R.v.Able, 59 111.131 
 
 63, 265 
 Arnold v., 83 111. 273 
 
 251, 502, 503 
 v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90 
 
 133, 141, 469, 473 
 v. Hutchinson, 47 111. 408 
 
 74, 192 
 Muldowney v., 36 Iowa 462, 
 
 39 Id. 615 50, 373, 374, 376
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lv 
 
 I. C. E. K. v. Patterson, 93 HI. 
 
 290, 69 Id. 650 60, 374 
 
 Quinn v., 51 111. 495 284 
 
 v. Bead, 37 111. 484 502 
 
 v. Hofl'man, 67 111. 287 224 
 
 v. Chambers, 71 111. 519 265 
 
 v. Lutz, 84 111. 598 265 
 
 v. Frelka, 110 111. 498, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 7 222, 470 
 
 v. Houck, 72 111. 285 
 
 299, 306, 446 
 McClary v., 3 Neb. 44 32 
 
 v. Downey, 18 111. 259 112, 115 
 Burling v., 85 111. 18 319, 377 
 v. Cox, 21 111. 20 368 
 
 v. Godfrey, 71 111. 500 
 
 177, 190, 197 
 v. Jewell, 46 111. 99 373 
 
 v. Keen, 72 111. 512 367 
 
 v. Hall, 72 111. 222 190 
 
 v. Modglin, 85 111. 481 196, 377 
 Spencer v., 29 Iowa 55 169 
 
 Way v., 40 Iowa 341 373 
 
 v. Sutton, 42 111. 438 418 
 
 v. Welch, 52 111. 183 308 
 
 v. Buckner, 28 111. 299 75 
 
 Daggett v., 34 Iowa 284 283, 374 
 Greenleaf v , 29 Iowa 14 373 
 v. Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325 213, 257 
 Law v., 32 Iowa 534 251 
 
 v. Slatton, 54 111. 133 265 
 
 ■o. Bachas, 55 111. 379 166 
 
 v. Green, 81 111. 19 283 
 
 Weldon v., 52 111. 290 486, 493 
 I. C. & L. R. R., Dick v., 38 Ohio 
 389, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 101 370 
 
 Billman v., 76 Ind. 166, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 41 
 
 13, 26, 151 
 I. C. & R. Ry., Bell v., 53 Ind. 
 
 57 135 
 
 Ihl v. F. S. S. R. R.,47 N. Y. 317 
 
 70, 482, 489 
 Illidge v. Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 
 
 190, 24 E. C. L. 39, 95, 148 
 Illinois, Munn v., 94 U. S. 130 4 
 
 Illinois R. R. v. Adams, 42 111. 
 
 474 502 
 
 Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Aid. 304, 
 
 5 E. C L. 47, 183 
 
 Imhoff v. C. & M. R. R., 20 
 
 Wise. 344 215, 263 
 
 Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 
 
 Wall. 442 454 
 
 Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. 
 
 P. 272, 2 Id. 311 200 
 
 Indiana R. R. v. Monday, 21 Ind. 
 
 48 501 
 
 Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, 100 
 
 Ind. 191 303 329 
 
 Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Mete. 1 233 
 
 Ingraham, T. W. & W. Ry. v., 77 
 
 111. 309 304, 307, 329, 346, 369 
 Insurance Co. v. Seaver, 19 Wall. 
 
 531 11 
 
 v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44 11 
 
 Spensley v., 54 Wise. 433 454 
 
 Sabolla v., 54 Wise. 687 454 
 
 Iowa, C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 94 U. 
 
 S. 161 4, 5 
 
 I., P. & C. R. R. v. Allen, 31 Ind. 
 
 294 501 
 
 Iron Screw C. Co., Grill v., L. It. 
 
 1 C. P. 612 6, 8 
 
 I. R. R. v. Mowery, 36 Obio 
 St. 418, 3 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 361 . 15, 62 274, 439 
 i>. Beaver, 41 Ind. 493 205, 292 
 Cunningham v., 51 Tex. 503 122 
 v. Estes, 96 111. 470 306 
 
 Keep v , 9 Fed. Rep. 625 139 
 Isaacs v., T. A. R. R., 47 N. Y. 
 
 122 112, 114 
 
 Isabel v. H. & St. J. R. R., 60 
 
 Mo. 482 55, 77 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 65 Mo. 
 475 196 
 
 Isbell v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R., 27 
 
 Conn. 393 54 
 
 Ivay v. Hedges, 9 Q. B. D. 80 177 
 I. & G. N. R. R., Beauchamp v., 
 
 56 Tex. 239 251 
 
 v. Dovle, 49 Tex. 190 307 
 
 v. Holloren, 53 Tex. 46, 3 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 343 31, 32, 233, 240, 246 
 
 v. Hester, 64 Tex. 401, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 535 349 
 
 v. Kindred, 57 Tex. 491, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 649 486 
 
 v. Kentle, Tex. , 16 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 337 114 
 
 v. Smith, 62 Tex. 252, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 21 
 
 72, 193 
 Stewart v., 53 Tex. 289, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 497 254 
 
 v. Stewart, 57 Ter. 166 470 
 
 v. Jordan, Tex. , 10 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 301 172 
 
 Prince v., 64 Tex. 144, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 152 208, 210
 
 lvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 I. & G. N. K. E. v. Terrv, 62 
 Tex. 3,S0, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 323 263, 467 
 
 v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 536, 22 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 4U5 467 
 I. & St. L. R. R. y. Horst, 93 U. 
 
 S. 291 204, 233, 2S6, 292, 436 
 v. Stoat, 53 Ind. 143 156 
 
 v. Stables, 62 111. 313 473 
 
 v. Cobb, 68 111. 53 471 
 
 Harper v., 44 Mo. 488 315 
 
 v. Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507, 3 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 467 251 
 
 v. Morganstern, 106 111. 216, 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 228 364 
 
 I. & C. R. R. v. Rutherford, 29 
 
 Ind. 83 284 
 
 v. Love, 10 Ind. 554 305 
 
 I. & V. R. R. v. McLin, 83 Ind. 
 435, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 237 159 
 
 Jackson, Metropolitan Ry. v., L. 
 R. 3 App. Cas. 198, L. R. 
 10C.P.49, 2C. P.L. 125, 
 H. L. 
 
 9, 24, 278, 451, 453, 454 
 C & N. W. Ry. v., 55 111. 492 
 
 304 329 
 Stone v., 12 C. B. 199, 81 E.' 
 
 C. L. 183 
 
 T. H. & I. R. R. v., 81 Ind. 
 19, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 178 114, 233, 275 
 
 v. N. C. & St. L. Ry., 13 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 491, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 433 24, 151 
 v. K. C, L. & S. K. R. R., 
 31 Ivans. 761, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 178 300, 319 
 v. S. A. R. R., 47 N. Y. 274 
 
 109, 114 
 Jacobus v. St. P. & C. R. R., 20 
 
 Minn. 125 207, 286, 501 
 
 Jacques v. B. II. R. R., 41 Conn. 
 
 61 473 
 
 Jacobs, G. & C. U. R. R. v., 20 
 
 Ind, 478 60 
 
 James, Penna. Co. v., 81 j Penna. 
 
 St. 194 77, 158, 196 
 
 v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 2 C. P. 
 634, note 165 
 
 Jarvis v. Dean, 3 Bing. 447, 11 
 
 E. C L. 148 
 
 Jamison v. S. J. & S. C. R. R, 
 55 Cal. 593, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 350 6, 233, 240, 241 
 Jay, Wigmore v., 5 Ex. 354 
 
 323, 332, 333 
 
 J. C. H. Ry., Gilson v., 76 Mo. 
 
 282 12 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 132 235 
 
 Jeffrey v. K. & D. M. R. R., 56 
 
 Iowa 546, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 568 299 
 
 Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumner 221 251 
 Jenkins v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 41 
 
 Wise. 112 112, 209 
 
 Jetter v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 2 Abb. 
 
 Ct. App. Dec. 458 310 
 
 Jewell v. Parr, 13 C. B. 909, 76 
 
 E. C. L. 449, 454 
 
 v. C, St. P. & M. Ry., 54 
 Wise. 610, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 379 265 
 
 v. G. T. Ry., 55 N. H. 84 
 
 103, 370, 371 
 I. C. R. R. v., 46 111. 99 373 
 
 Jewett, Fuller v., 80 N. Y. 46 
 
 300, 306, 329, 369 
 Klein v.. 26 N. J. Eq. 474 
 
 136, 257, 385, 481 
 Shaw v., 86 N. Y. 616, 6 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. Ill 
 
 168, 169, 173 
 Slater v., 84 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. 
 & Eng R. R. Cas. 515 
 316, 317, 326, 344, 362, 363, 366 
 Terry v., 78 N. Y. 338 275 
 
 De Forrest v., 88 N. Y. 264, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 495 302, 305, 343, 345 
 
 J. M. & I. R. R. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 
 
 563 214, 255 
 
 v. Bowen, 49 Ind. 154 76 
 
 v. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 42 263 
 
 Joel v. Morison, 6 C. & P. 501, 
 
 25 E. C. L. 102 
 
 John v. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. 437 
 
 136, 241 
 Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 
 
 25 Hun 251 435 
 
 v. Bruner, 61 Penna. St. 58 300 
 v. B. & M. R. R, 125 Mass. 
 
 75 214, 283 
 
 Duckworth v., 4 H. & N. 
 
 653 486, 488 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Ry., 49 Wise. 
 529, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 155 69 
 
 v. H. R. R. R., 20 N. Y. 65, 
 
 5 Duer 27 54, 436 
 
 Kelly v., 128 Mass. 530 372 
 
 Rail v., 3 II. &C. 589 356 
 
 M. & W. R. R. v., 38 Ga. 
 
 409 284 
 
 v. W. C. & P. R. R., 70 
 
 Penna. St. 366 6, 18, 63, 264 
 v. C. V. R. R., 56 Vt. 707 106
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lvii 
 
 Johnson v. E. & D. E. K., 81 N. 
 
 C. 453 307 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Ey., 56 Wise. 
 
 274, 8 Am. & Eng. K. Ii. 
 
 Cas. 471 69 
 
 v. L. & N. E. E., Ky. , 
 
 13 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 623 75, 160, 161 
 
 v. 0.. E. I. & P. E. E., 58 
 
 Iowa 348, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 206 109, 116 
 
 v. St. P. & D. Ey., 31 Minn. 
 
 283, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 467 156, 166 
 
 S. W. E. E. v., 60 Ga. 667 190 
 C, B. & Q. E. E. v., 103 111. 
 
 512, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 225 425, 432 
 
 v. G. W. & S. Ey., 9 Irish 
 
 Eep. C L. 108 502 
 
 Johnston, Bush v., 23 Penna. St. 
 
 209 148 
 
 Hyatt v., 91 Penna. St. 196 454 
 Tones v. Boyce, 1 Stark. 493, 2 E. 
 
 C. L. 14, 62 
 
 B. & P. E. E. E. v., 95 U. S. 
 
 439 6, 47, 283, 374 
 
 v. F. Ey., L. E. 3 Q. B. 733 145 
 v. H. E. E., 107 Mass. 261 152 
 L. V. Coal Co. v., 86 Penna. 
 
 St. 441 320, 322, 323 
 
 Robbins v., 15 C. B. N. S. 
 
 221, 109 E. C. L. 148 
 
 Williams v., 3 H. & C. 602 
 
 102, 104 
 v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 49 
 
 Mich. 573, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 221 349 
 
 N. & D. E. E. v., 9 Heisk. 
 
 (Tetin.) 27 306 
 
 S. E. E. v., 30 Kans. 601, 15 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 201 
 
 305, 307 
 v. G. T. Ey., 45 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 193 38 
 
 v. Mayor, etc., of Liverpool, 
 
 14 Q. B. 1). 890 103 
 v. N. Y. C. & II. E. E. E., 
 
 28 Hun 364, 92 N. Y. 678 310 
 V. L. E. E., Ky. , 22 
 Am. & Eng. E, E. Cas. 
 295 n. 376 
 
 Owings v.. 9 Md. 117 42 
 
 W. & A. E. K.r.,65 Ga.G31, 
 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 267 161 
 
 Jordin v. Crump, 8 M. & W. 782 183 
 Jordan, I. & G. N. Ey. v., Tex. 
 , 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 301 172 
 
 J. E. E. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 
 
 228 47, 63, 265 
 
 Kumler v., 33 Ohio St. 150 367 
 v. Swift, 26 Ind. 459 265 
 
 Jucker v. C. & N. W. E. E., 52 
 
 Wise. 150, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 41 28 
 
 Judson v. N. Y. & N. H. E. E., 
 
 29 Conn. 434 156 
 
 Juniata Bridge Co., Foster v., 16 
 
 Penna. St. 393 31 
 
 Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 545 136^301,330,413,414 
 Kane, T. & P. Ey. v., Tex. , 
 
 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 218 307 
 
 Kay v. P. E. E., 65 Penna. St. 
 
 273 6, 68, 91, 92, 166, 179 
 
 Karle v. K. C, St J. & C. B. E. 
 
 E., 55 Mo. 476 88 
 
 K. C. Ey. v. Dills, 4 Bush (Ky.) 
 
 593 ' 54, 471 
 
 v. Fitzsimmons, 18 Kans. 34, 
 
 22 Id. 686, 15 Am. Ey. 
 
 Eep. 220 122, 186 
 
 K. C, St. J. & C. B. Ey., Straus 
 
 v., T5 Mo. 185, 6 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 384 263, 265 
 
 Karle v., 55 Mo. 476 88 
 
 Kersey v., 79 Mo. 362, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 638 314 
 
 v. Flynn, 78 Mo 195, 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 23 
 
 306, 382, 436, 444 
 K. C. E. E. v. Thomas, 79 Ky. 
 
 160, 1 Am. & Eng. K. E. 
 
 Cas. 79 47, 246, 248 275, 286 
 K. C, L. & S. K. K. E., Jackson 
 
 v., 31 Kans. 761, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 178 300, 319 
 Kean v. B. & O. K. E., 61 Md. 
 
 154, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 321 54, 74, 174 
 
 Kearney v. L. B. & S. C. Ey., L. 
 
 E. 5 Q. B. 411, 6 Id. 759 
 
 148, 149, 441 
 Keating v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. 
 
 E., 49 N. Y. 673 273 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 
 
 98 N. Y. 128 263 
 
 Keeley v. E. Ey., 47 How. Pr. 
 
 256 38 
 
 Keffe v. M. & St. P: Ky., 21 
 
 Minn. 207 186 
 
 Keary, C, C. & C. Ey. v., 3 Ohio 
 
 St. 254 324, 326, 370 
 
 Keenan, P., W. & B. E. E. v., 
 
 103 Penna. St. 104 307
 
 lviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Keen, I. C 11. K v., 72 111. 512 307 
 Keep r. I. K. R ,9 Fed. Rep. 625 139 
 Keller, P. R. R. t>., 67 Penna. St. 
 
 300 490 
 
 v. S. C. & St. P. R. K., 27 
 Minn 178 263, 419 
 
 Kelley, II. M. & F. Ry. v., Iu2 
 
 Penna. St 115 35, 74, 111 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 75 Mo. 
 133, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 038 42, 168, 173, 174 
 
 L. & N. R. R. v., 92 Ind. 
 371, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 1 282, 286, 287 
 
 v. C, M. & St. P. Ry , 50 
 Wise. 331, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 65 378 
 
 Kelly v. C, M. & St. P. R. R., 53 
 Wise. 74, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 R R. Cas. 469 344 
 
 v. S. M. R. R., 28 Minn. 98, 
 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 261 156, 422 
 
 Farlovv v., 108 U. S. 288 
 
 274 285 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 70 Mo.' 
 
 604 265 
 
 P. R. R. v., 31 Penna. St. 
 
 372 68, 69, 151, 471, 482 
 
 Transfer Co. v., 36 Ohio St. 
 86, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 335 86 
 
 v. Johnson, 128 Mass. 530 372 
 Steinmetz v., 72 Ind. 442 50 
 
 v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 29 
 Minn. 1, 6 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 93 163, 169 
 
 v. W. C. Ry., Wise. 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 633 302, 309 
 
 v. Hendrie, 26 Mich. 255 88 
 
 Keefe, C. & A. R. R. v., 47 111. 
 
 108 367 
 
 Keegan v. W. R. R, 8 N. Y. 175 306 
 Kellow v O I. R. R., Iowa 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 485 276 
 
 Kellogg, M. & St. P. Ry. v., 94 
 
 U. S. 469, 475 10, 13 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 79 N. Y. 72 169, 494 
 
 Kendrick, S. R. R. v., 40 Miss. 
 
 374 263, 467, 471 
 
 Kennanl, N. J. R. R. v., 21 
 
 Penna. St. 203 284 
 
 KV;nnev ,■. ( '. R. R., 61 Ga. 590 307 
 
 C. R. R. v., 58 Ga. 485, 64 
 
 Id. 1 00, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 155 307 
 
 Yonge v., 26 Ga. Ill 275, 440 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Kennedv, Hayes v., 41 Penna. St. 
 
 378 31 
 
 I. & St. L. R. R. v., 77 Ind. 
 
 507, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 467 251 
 
 v, N. M. R. R., 36 Mo. 351 54 
 Kentle, I. & G. N. Ry. v., Tex. 
 , 16 Am.& Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 337 114 
 
 Kemp, B. C. P. Ry. v., 61 Md. 
 
 74, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 220 28, 391, 481 
 
 Kennell, Goodman v., 3 C. & P. 
 
 167, 14 E. C. L. 99 
 
 Kermode, Lowes v., 8 Taunt. 146 498 
 Kersey v. K. C, St. J. & C. B. R. 
 
 R., 79 Mo. 362, 17 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 638 314 
 
 Kerwhacker v. C, C, C. & I. Ry., 
 
 3 Ohio St. 172 54, 65 
 
 Kessenger v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 
 
 56 N. Y. 543 163, 166 
 
 Keyes, B. & B. Ry. v., 9 II. L. 
 
 C. 555 209 
 
 Keystone Bridge Co. v. New- 
 berry, 96"Penna. St. 246 323 
 Keyser v. C. & G. T. Ry., 
 
 Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 91 196, 198 
 
 K. I. Co., Knupfle v., 84 N. Y. 
 
 491 42 
 
 Kieth v. N. II. & N. R. R., 140 
 
 Mass. 175, 23 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 421 310 
 
 Kilgore. P. R. R. v., 32 Penna. 
 
 St. 292 18, 203, 264 
 
 Killips, P. R. R. v., 88 Penna. St. 
 
 405 151,165,447 
 
 Kimball v. R. & B. R. R., 26 Vt. 
 
 247 502 
 
 Kindred, I. & G. N. R. R. v., 57 
 
 Tex. 491, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 649 486 
 
 King v. B. & W. R. R., 9 Cush. 
 
 112 301, 338, 366 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 72 N. Y. 607 306 
 
 v. O. & M. Ry., U. S. C. C. 
 
 Ind., 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 386 281 
 
 v. O. R. R., U. S. C. C. Ind., 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 119 377 
 
 Steamboat New World v., 1 6 
 
 How 469 8, 207, 233 
 
 V. Thompson, 87 Penna. bt. 
 
 365 481 
 
 v. M. Ry., 14 Fed. Rep. 277, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 119 330, 369
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lix 
 
 King v. N. Y. C. & IT. E. E. R, 
 
 66 N. Y. 181 122 
 
 W. & A. E. B. v., 70 Ga. 261, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. R Cas. 
 
 255 447 
 
 Kingsbury, Shoemaker v., 12 
 
 Wall. 369 293 
 
 Kinney v. C. E. E. of N. J., 34 
 
 N. J. L. 513 208, 505 
 
 v. Central E. E., 32 N. J. L. 
 
 407 502 
 
 Kinsley v. C. S. & M. S. E. E., 
 
 125 Mass. 54 136, 243 
 
 Kirb*«. P. E. E., 76 Penna. St. 
 
 506 225, 228 
 
 Kirk, N. P. R E. v., 90 Penna. 
 
 St. 15, 1 Am. & Eng. E. 
 
 E. Cas. 45 230, 490, 494 
 
 Kirkpatrick v. N. Y. C. & H. E. 
 
 E. R, 79 N. Y. 240 306 
 
 Kinsey v. Crocker, 18 Wise. 
 
 74 163 
 Kinsley, Pendleton v., 3 Clif. 416 114 
 Kitteringbam v. I. C. & P. Ey., 
 
 62 Iowa 285, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 14 299 
 
 Klanowski v. G. T. Ey., Mich. 
 , 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 648 159, 427 
 
 Klein v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474 
 
 136, 257, 385, 481 
 Kline v. C. P. E. E., 37 Cal. 400, 
 
 587 109 
 
 Klutts v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ey., 
 
 75 Mo. 642, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas."639 474, 480 
 Knapp v. S. C. & P. Ey., 65 Iowa 
 91, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 60 26, 305 
 
 Knight v. Abert, 6 Penna. St. 
 
 472 183 
 
 v. Fox, 5 Ex. 721 122 
 v. P. E. E., 23 La. An. 462 265 
 v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R E., 
 
 99 N. Y. 25 28 
 
 v. P. S. & P. E. E., 56 Me. 
 234, 57 Id. 202 
 
 136, 233, 241, 254, 470 
 Baydure v., 2 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 713 39 
 
 v. Quarles, 2 Brod. & B. 102, 
 6 E. C. L. 400 
 
 Knittal, L. S. & M. S. Ey. v., 33 
 
 Ohio St. 468 373 
 
 Knowlton v. E. Ey., 10 Ohio St. 
 
 260 501 
 
 v. M. C. E. E., 59 Wise. 278, 
 16 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 330 65, 274 
 
 Knupfle v. K. I. Co., 84 N. Y. 491 42 
 
 Kolsti v. M. & St. L. Ey., 32 
 Minn. 133, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 140 . 186 
 
 Koons v. St. L. & 1. M. E. E., 65 
 
 Mo. 592 186 
 
 Koontz v. O, E. I. & P. Ey., 65 
 Iowa 224, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 85 305, 345 
 
 Kopitoff v. Wilson, 1 Q. B. D. 
 
 377 232 
 
 K. P. Ey., Behrens v. 5 Colo. 400, 
 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 184 374, 375, 436 
 
 v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442, 20 
 Am. Ey. Eep. 245 
 
 32, 440, 493 
 v. Peavey, 29 Kans. 170, 11 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 260 60, 384, 510 
 
 v. Cutter. 19 Kans. 83 469 
 
 v. Little' 19 Kans. 267 306 
 
 v. Lundin, 3 Colo. 94 431, 471 
 v. Eichardson 25 Kans. 391, 
 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 96 16o 
 
 v. Salmon, 11 Kans. 83 211, 356 
 Summerhays v., 2 Colo. 484 367 
 Kramer v. S. F., M. St. E. E., 
 
 25 Cal. 434 39^ 
 
 Kresanowski v. N. P. Ey., 18 
 
 Fed. Eep. 229 374 
 
 Krom v. Levy, 48 N. Y. 679 460 
 
 Krouse, P., C. & St. L. Ey. v., 30 
 
 Ohio St. 222 215 
 
 Kroy v. O, E. I. & P. E. E., 32 
 
 Iowa 357 373 
 
 Kugler, Hice v., 6 Wh. 336 47 
 
 Kumler v. J. E. E., 33 Ohio St. 
 
 150 367 
 
 Kuntze, Ex. Co. v., 8 Wall. 342 501 
 K. & D. M. Ey., O'Neill v., 45 
 
 Iowa 546 374 
 
 Jeffrey v., 56 Iowa 546, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas 568 299 
 Albertson v., 48 Iowa 292 76 
 
 K. & L. E. E., Osborne v., 68 Me. 
 
 49 370 
 
 Lacy, S. E. & D. E. E. v., 43 Ga. 
 
 461 410 
 
 Lacev, P. & N. Y. C. E. E. v., 89 
 
 Penna. St. 458 13 
 
 Ladd v. N. B. E. E., 119 Mass. 
 
 412 306, 307 
 
 Laing v. Colder, 8 Penna. St. 479 
 
 233, 473, 501 
 Laird, Boswell v., 8 Cal. 469 122 
 
 Lalor v. O, B. & Q. E. R, 52 111. 
 
 401 350 
 
 Lamb v. Palk, 9 C. & P. 629, 38 
 
 E. C. L. 102
 
 lx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Lambeth v. N. C. R. R., 66 N. C. 
 
 494 264, 287 
 
 Lambkiu o. S. E. Ry., 5 App. Cas. 
 
 352 34, 275, 470 
 
 Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 
 
 Conn. 237 134 
 
 Lanning v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. 
 
 Y. 521 314, 330, 382 
 
 Langan ». St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 
 
 72 Mo. 392, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 355 220, 256 
 
 Lane, P. & R. I. R. R. v., 83 111. 
 
 449 240, 286 
 
 v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 177 434 
 Langdon, P. R. R. v., 92 Penna. 
 
 St. 21, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 87 
 
 251, 252, 286, 288, 289, 495 
 Lantz, M. S. & N. J. R. R. v., 29 
 
 Ind. 528 240 
 
 Latch v. R. Ry., 27 L. J. Exch. 
 
 155, 3H.&N. 930 (Am. 
 
 ed.) 38 
 
 Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 
 
 547, 12 E. C. L. 102, 103, 120 
 Lauman. Fairman v., 73 Ind. 568 470 
 Lavallev, L. S. & M. S. R. R. v., 
 
 36 Ohio St. 221, 5 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 549 
 
 316, 323, 347, 370 
 Laverick, Searle v., L. R. 9 Q. B. 
 
 122 232 
 
 Lawson v. Bank of London, 18 
 
 C. B. 84, 86 E. C. L. 99, 112 
 v. O, St. P., M. & O. R. R., 
 
 64 Wise. 447, 21 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 249 205 
 
 Lax v. Darlington, 5 Ex. D. 35 
 
 18, 63, 200 
 Lawless v. C. R. R. R., 136 Mass. 
 
 1, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 96 307, 329, 337, 369, 380 
 Lawrence v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R., 
 
 36 Conn. 63 502 
 
 Laicher v. N. O., J. & S. R. R., 
 
 28 La. An. 320 75 
 
 Larmore v. C. P. I. Co., 101 N. Y. 
 
 391 177 
 
 Lary v. O, O, C. & I. R. R., 78 
 
 Ind. 323, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 498 177, 190 
 
 Laverenz v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 56 
 
 Iowa 689, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 274 169, 170 
 
 Langridge v. Levy, 2 M. & W. 
 
 519, 4 Id. 337 412 
 
 Langhoff v. M. & P. M. C. R. R., 
 
 19 Wise. 489 159 
 
 Lansing, Perry v., 17 Hun 34 86 
 
 Law v. I. C R. R., 32 Iowa 534 251 
 
 PAGlt 
 
 L. B. & S. C. Ry., Bilbee v., 18 
 C. B. N. S. 584, 114 E. C. 
 L. 165 
 
 Foy v., 18 OB. N. S. 225, 
 
 114 E. C. L. 266 
 
 Hirschfeld v., 2 Q. B. D. 1 508 
 Kearney v., L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 411, 6 Id. 759 148, 149, 441 
 Lovegrove v., 16 C. B. N. S. 
 
 669, 111 E. C. L. 323, 356, 367 
 Skinner v., 5 Ex. 787 
 
 206, 274, 390, 439 
 Stapley v., L. R. 1 Ex. 21 
 
 41, 164, 166, 172 
 Toomey v., 3 C. B. N. S. 146, 
 
 91 E. C. L. 258, 434, 449 
 
 Weller v., L. R. 9 C. P. 132 
 
 261, 262, 266, 267 
 L. Bridge Co., Sullivan v., 9 
 
 Bush 81 47 
 
 L. Canal Co., Parnabv v., 11 Ad. 
 
 & El. 223, 39 E. C. L. 200, 201 
 L. C. & D. Ry., Lewis v., L. R. 9 
 
 Q. B. 71 261, 262, 270, 271 
 
 Moriarty v., L. R. 5 Q. B. 
 
 314 " 423 
 
 Gardner v., L. R. 2 Ch. 201 
 
 132, 134 
 L. O & N. Co., Lehigh Bridge 
 
 Co. v., 4 Rawle 8 31 
 
 L. C & L. R. R. v. Case, 9 Bush 
 
 (Kv.) 728 86, 486 
 
 v. Cavens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 559 323 
 v. Goetz, 79 Ky. 442, 14 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 627 159 
 
 v. Mahony, 7 Bush (Ky.) 235 
 
 54, 431 
 L. C. & C. R. R., Felder v., 2 
 
 MtMu!lan403 192 
 
 L. C. Ry. v. Weams, 80 Ky. 420, 
 8 Am. <k Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 399 233 
 
 L. D. Co., Doughty v., 76 Me. 
 
 143 356 
 
 Leech, P. C. & St. L. R. R., 41 
 Ohio St. 388, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 541 note 349 
 LeBaron v. East Boston Ferry 
 
 Co., 11 Allen 312 246 442 
 LeBlanche v. L. & K W. Ry., 1 
 
 C. P. D. 286 467 
 
 Leach, Dynen v., 26 L. J. Ex. 
 
 221 373 
 
 Leahy v. S. P. Rv , Cal. , 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 230 307 
 
 LeClair v. St. P. & P. R. R., 20 
 
 Minn. 9 382 
 
 Lee v. Troy Citizens' Gas Light 
 
 Co., 98 N. Y. 115 436
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxi 
 
 Lee v. Woolsev, 1 6 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Case's (Penna.) 337 319 
 
 C. B. & Q. E. B. v., 60 111. 
 501 420 
 
 Lees, Bramall v., 29 L. T. 82 
 
 486, 489 
 Leggott v. G. N. By., 1 Q. B. D. 
 
 599 401 
 
 LeGierse, G. H. & S. A. E. E. v , 
 
 51 Tex. 189 63, 264 
 
 LePeintur v. S. E. Ey., 2 L. J. 
 
 N. S. 170 460 
 
 Lehman v. Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 
 
 234 441 
 
 Lehigh Bridge Co. v. L. C. & N. 
 
 Co., 4 Bawle 8 31 
 
 Lehigh Iron Co. v. Eupp, 12 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 47 407 
 
 Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. 340 
 
 208, 235 
 Leslie, H. & T. C. E. E. v., 57 
 Tex. 83, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 384 265 
 
 P. & N. Y., N. & E. E. Co. v., 
 16 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 321 306, 329, 369 
 Letcher, C. E. E. v., 69 Ala. 106, 
 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 115. 264, 265 
 
 Leroy, Wade v., 20 How. 34 473 
 
 Levering v. Union Trans. Co., 42 
 
 Mo. 88 502 
 
 Levy, Krom v., 48 N. Y. 679 460 
 Langridge v., 2 M. & W. 
 519, 4 Id. 337 412 
 
 Lett v. St. L. & O. Ev., 11 Ont. 
 Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. E. 
 E. Cas. 165 486, 490 
 
 Lewis v. L. C. & D. Ey., L. E. 9 
 
 Q. B. 71 261, 262, 270, 271 
 C, E. I. & P. E. E. v., 109 
 HI. 120, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 224 508 
 
 v. F. & P. M. Ey., 54 Mich. 
 55, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 263 25, 466 
 
 P., F. W. & C. Ey. v., 33 
 
 Ohio St. 196 323, 367 
 
 P. E. E. v., 79 Penna. St. 33 
 
 76, 77, 158, 196, 198 
 v. St. L. & I. M. Ey., 59 Mo. 
 
 495 305, 329, 369 
 
 v. B. & O. E. E., 38 Md. 
 
 588 283 
 
 v. Hollahan, 103 Penna. St. 
 425 495 
 
 Ledbetter, A., T. & S. F. E. E. v., 
 34 Kans. 326, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 555 307 
 
 Lemont v. W. & G. E. E., 1 
 
 Mackey (E. C.) 180, 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 263 280 
 
 Lempe, G. H. & S. A. E. E. v., 
 
 59 Tex. 19, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 201 349 
 
 Leonard v. C. S. N. Co., 84 N. 
 
 Y. 48 409 
 
 Lewark, S. L. B. E. E. v., 4 Ind. 
 
 471 224 
 
 Levoy v. M. Ey., 3 Ont. 623, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 478 166 
 
 L. E. & St. L. E. E., Capper v. 
 
 103 Ind. 305, 21 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 525 367, 381 
 Copper v., Ind. , 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 277 323, 368 
 
 L. E. & W. Ey. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 
 
 381, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 109 25, 467 
 
 L. G. Omnibus Co., Simpson v., 
 
 L. E. 8 C. P. 390 434 
 
 L. I. E. E., McCosker v., 84 N. 
 
 Y. 77, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 567 328, 344, 368 
 Eckert v., 43 N. Y. 502 37, 50 
 Clussman v., 73 N. Y. 606 
 
 214 253 
 Stoddard v., 5 Sandf. S. C. 
 
 180 501 
 
 Werle v., 98 N. Y. 650 282 
 
 Willis v., 34 N. Y. 670 282, 284 
 
 Greany v., 101 N. Y. 419 427 
 
 Liddy v. St. Louis E. E., 40 Mo. 
 
 506 54 
 
 Lichfield, Morris v., 35 N. H. 271 65 
 Lichtenthaler, Lockhart v., 46 
 
 Penna. St. 151 81, 86 
 
 Lilly, Penna. Co. v., 73 Ind. 252 490 
 Lindsay, Searle v., 11 C. B. N. S. 
 
 429, 103 E. C. L. 356 
 
 v. C. E. E., 46 Ga. 447 417 
 
 Lindsey v. O, E. I. & P. E. E., 
 
 64 Iowa 407, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 179 264 
 
 Lincoln v. S. & S. E. E., 23 
 
 Wend. 425 29 
 
 Linton v. Smith, 8 Gray 147 122 
 
 Liscomb v. N. J. E. E., 6 Lans. 
 
 75 254 
 
 Limekiller v. H. & St. J. E. E., 
 
 33 Kans. 83, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 184 410 
 
 Limpus v. London Gen'l Omni- 
 bus Co., 1 H. & C. 526 99, 107 
 Little, K. P. Ey. v., 19 Kans. 267 306 
 v. Hacket, 116 U. S. 366 103
 
 lxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 TAGE 
 
 Livezev r. Philadelphia, 04 
 
 Penna. St. 106 31 
 
 Lloyd, Rauch v., 31 Penna. St. 
 
 3 »8 67, 68, 151 
 
 L. L. & G. R. R. v. Rice, 10 
 
 Kans. 426 160 
 
 L. M. R. R. v. Fitzpatriek, 42 
 Ohio St. 318, 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 578 
 
 309, 310, 335, 367 
 v. Stevens, 20 Ohio 416 
 
 323, 324, 369 
 v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110 115 
 L. K A. & C. Rv., McClelland v., 
 94 Ind. 276, 18 Am.& Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 260 25 
 
 v. Shires, 108 111. 617, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 387 60, 431 
 
 v. Dunkin, 92 Ind. 601, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 422 108, 189 
 
 Carter v., 98 Ind. 522, 22 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 360 109, 189 
 
 v. Smith, 91 Ind. 119, 13 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 608 156 
 
 v. Head, 80 Ind. 117, 4 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 619 
 
 157, 162, 196 
 v. Shanks, 94 Ind. 598, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 28 436 
 
 L. N. G. & C. Co., Holden v., 3 
 
 M. G. & S. 1, 54 E. C. L. 47 
 L. N. & G. S. R. R. v. Guinan, 
 
 11 Lea (Tenn.) 98 471 
 
 Locke v. S. C. & P. Ry., 46 Iowa 
 
 109 240, 303, 305 
 
 Elmer v., 135 Mass. 575, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 300 305, 337 
 
 Fowler v., L. R. 7 C. P. 272, 
 9 Id. 751, n. 232 
 
 Lockhart v. Lichtenthaler, 46 
 
 Penna. St. 151 81, 86 
 
 Lockwood v. C, N. & W. Ry.. 55 
 Wise. 50, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 151 318, 374, 376 
 v. Allen, 7 Mass. 254 468 
 
 N. Y. C. R. R. v., 17 Wall. 
 357 8, 204, 233, 501, 505 
 
 Lofton v. Vogdes, 17 Ind. 105 88 
 
 Lombard v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 
 
 47 Iowa 494 383 
 
 London Genl. Omnibus Co., Green 
 v., 7 C. B. N. S. 290, 97 E. 
 C. L. 99, 107 
 
 Limpus v., 1 H. & C. 526 99, 107 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Long v. P. Ry., 65 Mo. 225 330, 869 
 P. & R. R. R. v., 75 Penna. 
 
 St. 257 77, 158 
 
 Penna. Co. v., 94 Ind. 250, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 345 338, 341 
 
 M., K. & T. R. R. v., 27 
 
 Kans. 684 156 
 
 Longenecker v. P. R. R., 105 
 
 Penna. St. 328 
 
 . 163, 427, 444, 454 
 Longmore v. G. W. Ry., 19 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 183, 115 E. C. L. 253 
 Longmeid v. Halliday, 6 Ex. 761 412 
 Loonier, Derwort v., 21 Conn. 253 233 
 Lovell «. Howell, 1 C. P. D. 161 356 
 Loucks v. O, M. & St. P. Ry., 31 
 
 Minn. 526, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 305 163, 169 
 
 Lovegrove v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 
 
 16 C. B. N. S. 669, 111 E. 
 
 C. L. 323, 356, 367 
 
 Love, Fessler v., 43 Penna. St. 
 
 313 460 
 
 I. & C. R. R. v., 10 Ind. 554 305 
 Lowell v. B. & L. R. R., 23 Pick. 
 
 24 127 
 
 Lowery, Delphi v., 74 Ind. 520 
 
 469, 470 
 v. M. Ry., 99 K Y. 158 26, 152 
 Lowes v. Kermode, 8 Taunt. 146 498 
 Loyd v. II. & St. J. R. R., 53 Mo. 
 
 509 264, 424 
 
 Lord Kinnard, Aveson v., 6 East 
 
 188 417 
 
 Lovejov v. B. & L. R. R., 125 
 
 Mass. 79 308 
 
 L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Duffey, 35 
 
 Ark. 602, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 607 30 1,349 
 
 v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 10 205, 275, 288, 440 
 
 v. Barker, 39 Ark. 491, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 195 489 
 
 v. Townsend, 41 Ark. 382, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 619 346 
 
 L. R. R., Jones v., Ky. , 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 295, n. 376 
 
 L. S. N. R. R. v. Norton, 24 
 
 Penna. St. 465 
 
 56, 60, 61, 190, 191 
 L. S. Steel Co., Howells v., L. R. 
 
 10 Q. B. 62 321 
 
 L. S. & M. S. R. R., Henry v., 49 
 
 Mich. 495, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 110 299, 366, 434
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxiii 
 
 L. S. & M. S. K. E., Haycroft v., 64 
 
 N. Y. 636 71 
 
 Hoag v., 85 Penna. St. 293 12, 13 
 Jones v., 49 Mich. 573, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 221 349 
 v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440, 
 
 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 474 300,301,302,306,345,346 
 v. Knittal, 33 Ohio St. 468 373 
 Umback v., 83 Ind. 191, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 98 300, 346 
 
 Vosburgh v., 94 N. Y. 374 304 
 Wood v., 49 Mich. 370, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 478 263 
 v. Miller, 25 Mich. 274 86, 169 
 v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St. 221, 
 
 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 549 316, 323, 347, 370 
 
 v. Bangs, 47 Mich. 470, 3 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 426 264 
 
 Borst v., 66 N. Y. 639 151, 155 
 v. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. 
 
 479 305 
 Wolsey v., 33 Ohio St. 227 
 
 374, 378 
 Guggenheim v., Mich. , 
 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 546 163, 447 
 
 Mahlen v., 49 Mich. 585, 14 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas.. 
 687 169, 173 
 
 L. S. & St. K. Co., Nitro-Phos- 
 phate Co. v., L. E. 9 Ch. 
 
 D. 503 41 
 Luby v. H. E. E. E., 17 N. Y. 131 416 
 Lucas v. Mason, L. E. 10 Ex. 251 102 
 
 v. N. B. & T. E. E., 6 Gray 
 
 65 220 
 
 v. M. & St. P. Ey., 33 Wise. 
 
 41 209, 210 
 
 v. IS.Y.C, E. E., 21 Barb. 
 
 (N.Y.)245 398 
 
 Luebke v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 59 
 
 Wise. 127, 15 Am. &Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 183 347 
 Lundin, K. P. Ey. v., 3 Colo. 94 
 
 431, 471 
 Lundstrom, C, St. P., M. & O. 
 
 E. K. v., 16 Neb. 254, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 528 370 
 
 Lunt v. L. & N. W. Ey., L. E. 1 
 
 Q. B. 277 164 
 
 Lutz, ICE. E. v., 84 111. 598 265 
 L.V.Coal Co. v. Jones, 86 Penna. 
 
 St. 44: 320, 322, 323 
 
 Morey v., 55 Iowa 671 349 
 
 L. V. E. E., Derrenbachcr v., 87 
 N. Y. 636, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 624 306 
 
 v. Hall, 61 Penna. St. 361 
 
 174, 441, 444 
 v. McKeen, 90 Penna. St. 
 122 13, 454 
 
 Lyde, M. P. Ev. v., 57 Tex. 505, 
 
 II Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 188 346, 376, 432 
 
 Lvgo v. Newbold, 8 Ex. 302 91 
 
 Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29, 41 
 
 E. C L. 39, 66, 90, 94, 187 
 Penna. Co. v.. 90 111. 334 
 
 342, 374, 378 
 v. M. E. Ey., 90 N. Y. 77, 12 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 119 110 
 
 S. L. B. E. E. v., 4 Ind. 494 224 
 Lvons r. Desotelle, 124 Mas*. 387 65 
 v. E. E. E., 57 N. Y. 489 480 
 v. Martin, 8 A. & E. 502, 35 
 E. C L. 102 
 
 Lvon v. D., L. & L. M. Ey., 31 
 
 Mich. 429 378 
 
 L. & B. E. E. v. Chenewith, 52 
 
 Penna. St. 3S2 201,252,501 
 r. Doak, 52 Penna. St. 379 246 
 Ellis v., 2 H. & N. 424 47 
 
 Wills v., 129 Mass. 351, 2 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 27 
 
 251, 291 
 L. & B. Ey., Carpue v., 5 Q. B. 
 
 747, 48 E. C. L. 274, 439 
 
 Welfare v., L. E. 4 Q. B. 
 693 25§, 434, 442 
 
 L. & C. Ev., Chilton v., 16 M. & 
 
 W. 212 99, 110 
 
 v. Siekings. 5 Bush 1 54, 284 
 
 L. & N. E. E., Dawson v., Ky. 
 ; 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 134 261 
 
 Hudson v., 14 Bush (Ky.) 
 
 303 153 
 
 v. McCoy, 81 Ky. 403, 15 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 277 472 
 
 v. Howard, Ky. , 19 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 98 
 
 190, 192 
 v. Schmidt, 81 Ind. 264, 8 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. < as. 
 248 151, 154 
 
 v.Wolfe, 80 Kv. 82, 5 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 625 254 
 Schittenhelm v., Ey. , 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 III 191. 193 
 v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50, 8 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 94 300, 306
 
 lxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 L. & N. E. E., Tanner »., 60 Ala. 
 
 621 233, 416 
 
 v. Kelley, 92 Ind. 371, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 1 
 
 282, 286, 287 
 v. Green, Ky. , 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 95 192, 196 
 Travis v., 9 Lea (Tenn.) 231 416 
 v. Collins, 2Duvall 114 
 
 50, 327, 355, 370 
 v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 128, 18 Am. & Eng. R. E. 
 
 Cas. 347 25, 60, 250, 466 
 
 Guthrie v., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 372, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 209 307 
 
 v. Cooper, Ky. , 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 5 193 
 
 v. Eobinson, 4 Bush (Ky.) 
 
 507 366 
 
 v. Bowler, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 
 866 323, 370 
 
 Johnson v., Ky. , 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 623 75, 160, 161 
 
 v. McKenna, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 280, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 276 40 
 
 v. McKenna, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 313, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 114 160 
 
 v. Milam, 10 Tenn. 223, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 507 158 J 
 
 t>. Melton, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 
 
 262 167 
 
 v. Filbern, 6 Bush (Ky.) 574 54 
 Adams v., Ky. , 21 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 380 265 
 Bennett v., 102 U. S. 577, 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 71 
 
 201, 253 
 Smith v., 75 Ala. 449, 21 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 157 404 
 v. Watkins, Ky. ,12 
 
 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 89 191 
 L. & N. W. Ey., Collett v., 16 Q. 
 
 B. 984, 71 E. C. L. 215 
 
 Edwards v., L. R. 5 C P. 
 
 445 110, 112 
 
 Sharrod v., 4 Ex. 580 389 
 
 Saunders v., 8 C. B. N. S. 887, 
 
 98 E. C. L. 481 
 
 Freemantle v., 10 C. B. N. S. 
 
 95, 100E.C. L. 246,247 
 
 Gallin v., L. R. 10 Q. B. 212 500 
 Hobbitt v., 4 Ex. 243 
 
 97, 102, 120 
 LeBlanche v., 1 C. P. D. 286 467 
 Lunt v., L. E. 1 Q. B. 277 164 
 
 L. & N. W. Ey., Eadley v., L. E. 9 
 Ex. 91, 10 Id. 100, 1 App. 
 Cas. 754 53, 54 
 
 Eeedie v., 4 Ex. 243 
 
 38, 97, 102, 120, 125 
 Eowley v., L. E. 8 Ex. 221 
 
 431, 469, 475, 479, 484 
 Skelton v., L. E. 2 C. P. 
 
 361 172 
 
 Stubley v., L. E. 1 Ex. 13 
 
 163, 166 
 Wright v., L. E. 10 Q, B. 
 298, 1 Q. B. D. 252 223, 372 
 L. & P. By., Muschamp v., 8 M. 
 
 6 W. 421 137 
 L. & M. M. Ey. v. Montgomery, 
 
 7 Ind. 475 48 
 L. & St. K. Docks Co., Scott v., 3 
 
 H. & C. 596 438, 441 
 
 Griffiths v., 12 Q. B. D. 493, 
 
 13 Id. 259 344 
 
 N. P. & O. C. M. Co. v., 9 
 
 Ch. D. 515 33 
 
 Smith v., L. K. 3 C. P. 326 200 
 L. & S. E. Ey., Cockle v., L. E. 
 
 5 C. P. 457, 7 Id. 321 266, 267 
 L. & S. W. Ey., Allen v., L. E. 
 
 6 Q. B. 65 110 
 Davey v., 11 Q. B. D. 213, 
 
 12 Id. 73 172, 436 
 
 Ford v., 2 F. & F. 730 165, 246 
 Hobbsi-., L. E. 10 Q. B.lll 
 
 24, 263, 391, 459, 463 
 Poulton v., L. E. 2 Q. B. 
 
 534 110 
 
 Smith v., L. E. 5 C. P. 102 6, 39 
 L. & Y. Ey., Adams v., L. E. 4 
 
 C. P. 739 15, 16, 63, 279 
 
 Armstrong v., L. E. 10 Ex. 
 
 47 80, 86 
 
 Blamires v., L. E. 8 Ex. 283 
 
 41, 276 
 Bradshaw v., L. E. 10 C. P. 
 
 189 401 
 
 Galliard v., 12 L. T. 356 
 
 486, 491 
 Gee v., 6H.&N. 211 460, 462 
 Nicholson v., 3 II. & C. 534 255 
 Sneesby v., 1 Q. B. D. 42 39 
 
 Vose v., 2 II. & K 728 
 
 220, 316, 356, 372 
 L. & F. E. E., Eden v., 14 B. 
 
 Monr. 204 397 
 
 L. & I. Ey. v. Huffinann, 28 Ind. 
 
 287 91 
 
 Maddox, H. & T. C. Ey. v., 
 
 Tex. , 21 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 625 307 
 Seymour v., 16 Q. B. 327, 71 
 E. C. L. 344
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxv 
 
 Mackav v. N. Y. C. E. R, 35 N. 
 
 *Y. 75 166 
 
 Mackin v. B. & A. R. R., 135 
 Mass. 201, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 196 
 
 309, 310, 335, 367 
 MacDoncjall v . C. R. R., 63 Cal. 
 431. 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 143 436 
 
 Macfie, Abbott v., 2 H. & C. 744 
 
 39, 95, 187 
 Hughes v., 2 H. & C. 744 
 
 39, 95, 187 
 Mackev v, M. P. R. R., 18 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 236 47 
 
 Maener v. Carroll, 46 Md. 212 177 
 Mahoney v. A. & St. L. R. R., 63 
 
 Me. 68 133 
 
 L. C. & L. R. R. v., 7 Bush 
 
 (Kv.) 235 54, 431 
 
 v. M. R. R., 104 Mass. 73 330 
 N. P. R. R. v., 57 Penna. St. 
 187 95 
 
 Madden v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 
 Minn. 303, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 63 348 
 
 Maginnis v. N. Y. C. R. R., 52 
 
 N. Y. 215 166 
 
 Mater v. A. & P. R. R., 64 Mo. 
 
 267 375 
 
 v.Vi.&St. P. Ry., 31 Minn. 
 401, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas 572 28 
 
 Maguire v. Middlesex R. R., 115 
 
 Masr. 239 284, 290 
 
 Maine, T. W. & W. Rr. v., 67 
 
 111. 29S 255 
 
 Mann, Davies v., 10 M. & W. 
 
 546 51 
 
 v. C. V. R. R., 55 Vt. 484, 
 14 Am. & Eng. R, R. Cas. 
 620 156 
 
 v. D. & H. C. Co.. 91 N. Y. 
 495, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 199 314,315,320,329,332 
 v. Preacher, 40 Vt. 332 502 
 
 v. S. C. & P. Ry., 46 Iowa 
 
 637 305 
 
 v. Weiand, 4 Weekly Notes 
 of Case9 (Penna.) 6 83, 407 
 Mangan v. B. C. R R., 30 N. Y. 
 
 445 68 
 
 v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Kc 239 
 
 39, 94, 9 
 v. B. C. R. R., 38 X. V. 456 91 
 Mangans, C. V. B. B. v., 61 Ml. 
 53, 18 Am. & Eng. R. B. 
 Cas. 182 264 
 
 Manknto, O'Learv?-.. 21 Minn. 65 422 
 Phelps v., 23 Minn. 276 422 
 
 K 
 
 Manley v. St. H. Ry. & Canal 
 
 Co., 2 H. & N. 840 149 
 
 Manser v. E. C. Ry., 3 L. T. N. S. 
 
 585 287, 238, 240 
 
 Malmsten v. M., H. & O. R. R., 
 
 49 Mich. 94, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 291 86 
 
 Maleck v. T. G. R. R., 57 Mo. 18 114 
 Manson, C, C, C. & I. R. 11. v , 
 
 :. I Ohio St 451 287 
 
 Marble v. Ross. 1 24 Mass. 44 60 
 
 Muriel 1 v. S. \V. Ry., S C. B. X. 
 
 S. 525, 98 E. C. L. 200, 225 
 Mantel v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 33 
 
 Minn. 62, 19 Am. &"Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 362 166 
 
 Marsland, Nichols v., 2 Ex. D. 1 31 
 Mara, C, C. & C. R. R. v., 26 
 
 Ohio St. 185 418 
 
 March, G. & C. Co., Burrows v., 
 
 L. R, 5 Ex. 66, 7 Id. 96 95 
 Marsden v. Haigh, 14 Weekly 
 
 X'otes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 526 373 
 
 Marshall v. Y. N. & B- Ry., 11 
 
 C. B. 655, 73 E. C L'. 
 
 206, 390, 392 
 Hubbard v., 117 U. S. 415 454 
 v. Strieker, 63 Mo. 308 323 
 St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. v., 
 
 78 Mo. 610, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 248 25, 466 
 v. C. & G. E. R. R., 4S HI. 
 
 475 418 
 
 Martin, C. C. R. R. v., 7 Colo. 
 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 592 367 
 
 v. G. I. P. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 
 
 9 217 
 
 P. G: N. Ry., 16 C. B. 179, 
 
 81 E. C. L. 48, 254 
 
 Lyons v., 8 A. & E. 502, 35 
 
 E. C. L. 102 
 
 O. & R. V. R. R. v., 14 Neb. 
 
 295, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 ( as 236 178, 183 
 
 i». Stille, 3 Whart. 337 395 
 
 Thurston v., 1 Mason 197 470 
 Maschek v. St. L. R. R., 71 Mo. 
 
 276, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 38 35,74,112 
 
 Mason, Lucas i\, L. R. 10 Ex. 
 
 2>1 102 
 
 v. Mi. P. Ry., 27 Kans. 83, 
 
 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 1 190, 192 
 
 Masterson r. N. Y. C. & H. R. 
 
 R. R.. 84 N. Y. 247, 3 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 408 86, 155
 
 Ixvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Mast in r. B. & O R. R., 14 W. 
 
 Ya. 180 205 
 
 Major, Chicago v., 18 111.349 489 
 Manzoni v. Douglass, 6 Q. B. D. 
 
 I I", 434 
 
 Marcelles, E. & T. C. Ry. v., 59 
 
 Tex. 334, 1- Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 231 329,369 
 
 Mans r. N. P. R. R., Dak. , 
 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 620 436 
 
 Mark v. St. P., M. & M. Ry.. 30 
 
 Minn.492, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 86 50, 62 
 
 Malone v. Hathaway, 64 N. Y. 5 321 
 Manning v. B., C. B. & N. R. R., 
 
 64 Iowa 240, 15 Am. & 
 
 Eng.R. R. Cas. 171 306 
 
 Marion v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 59 
 
 Iowa 423, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. R. Cas. 177 109, 115 
 
 Manville v. C. & T. R. R., 11 
 
 Ohio St. 417 368 
 
 Maltby v. C. & W. M. Ry., 52 
 'Mich. 108, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 606 156 
 
 Mahlen v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 49 
 
 Mich. 585, 14 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 687 169, 173 
 
 Manlv v. W. & W. R. R., 74 N. 
 
 C. 655 192 
 
 Marcott v. M., H. & O. Ry., 47 
 
 Mich. 1, 4 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 548 168 
 
 Marker, St. L. & S. F. R. R. v., 
 
 41 Ark. 542 376 
 
 Marquette v. C. & N. W. Ry., 33 
 
 Iowa 562 109 
 
 Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y. 
 
 396, 400 301, 373 
 
 v. S. C. R. R. 56 Ga. 274 
 
 416 423 
 Marten, M. P. R. R. Tex. ,' 
 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 409 222 
 
 Martin, P. C & St. L. Ry. v., 82 
 
 ind. 47 (i, 8 Am. & Eng.R. 
 
 R. Cas. 253 159, 169 
 H. & St. J. R. R. v., 11 
 
 Bradwell 386 213 
 
 v. Wallace, 40 Ga. 52 66 
 
 Mathieson, Weeins v., 4 Macq. 
 
 H. L. 215 314 
 
 Mather, Holmes v., L. R. 10 Ex. 
 
 261 389 
 
 Matteson v. N. Y. C. R. R., 35 N. 
 
 Y. 487 240, 275, 417 
 
 Martensen v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 
 
 60 Iowa 705, 11 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 233 376 
 
 M., A. & B. Ry. v. Stewart, 30 
 
 Ivans. 226, L3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. ( 'as. 503 426 
 
 Massotli v. D. & 11. C. Co., 64 N. 
 
 Y. 531 159 
 
 Matthias, St. L. & S. E. Ry. v., 
 
 50 Ind. 65 167 
 
 Matthews p. W. L. Waterworks 
 
 Co., 3 Camp. 403 120 
 
 P. R. R. v., 36 N. J. L. 531 
 
 163, 166 
 Mayes, M. & A. R. R. v., 49 Ga. 
 
 355 125, 133, 141 
 
 Mavo v. B. & M. R. R., 104 
 
 Mass. 137 436 
 
 Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, 7 
 
 Q. B. 339, 377, 53 E. C. 
 
 L. 51, 54 
 
 of Manchester, Scott v., 1 H. 
 
 & N. 59 122 
 
 of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. D. 
 
 890 103 
 
 Mayes v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 63 
 
 Iowa 562, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 527 306 
 
 M. Board of Works, Dixon v., 7 
 
 Q. B. D. 418 34, 146 
 
 McAra, C, R. I. & P. Ry. v., 52 
 
 111. 296 275 
 
 McAllister v. B. & N. W. Ry., 64 
 
 Iowa 395, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 108 191, 196 
 
 McArthur v. Green Bay Co., 34 
 
 Wise. 139 65 
 
 McCaffertv v. S. D. & P. M. R. R., 
 
 6LN.Y. 178 122 
 
 McCall v. Forsythe, 4 W. & S. 179 
 
 390, 394 
 McCarthy, C. & St. P. R. R. v., 
 
 20 111. 385 133, 141 
 
 v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 18 
 
 Kans. 45 409 
 
 McCauley, W r ard v., 4 T. R. 490 390 
 McClelland v. L., N. A.& C. Ry., 
 
 94 Ind. 276, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 260 25 
 
 McClurg, P. & 0. R. R. v., 56 
 
 Penna. St. 294 250, 251, 284 
 McClary p. I. C. Ry , 3 Neb. 44 32 
 McCullough v. Shoneman, 14 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 395 102 
 
 Hemingway v., 15 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 328 102 
 
 McCully v. Clarke, 40 Penna. St. 
 
 399 406, 447, 448 
 
 McCune v. N. P. Ry., 18 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 875, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 172 305
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lx 
 
 XV1J 
 
 McCoy, L. & N. R. R. v., 81 Ky. 
 
 403, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 277 472 
 
 McComb v. N. C. R. R., 70 N. C. 
 
 178 416 
 
 McCool, O. & M. Packet Co. v., 
 Ind , 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R, R. Cas. 390 440 
 
 McCloskey, P. R. R. v., 23 Penna. 
 
 St. 52(5 287, 492, 501 
 
 McCawley v. Furness Ry., L. R. 
 
 8 Q. B. 57 499 
 
 McCormiek, L. S. & M. S. Ry. v., 
 
 74 Ind. 440, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 474 
 
 300, 301, 302, 306, 345, 346 
 McCorkle v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 
 
 61 Iowa 555, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 156 
 
 264, 265 
 McCosker v. L. I. R. R., 84 N. Y. 
 
 77, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 567 328, 344, 368 
 
 McCurdy, G. R. R. & B. Co. v., 
 
 45 Ga. 288 286, 287 
 
 McCue, Packet Co. v., 17 Wall. 
 
 508 372 
 
 McDaniel, W. Ry. v., 107 U. S. 
 
 454 313, 470 
 
 McDade, G. R. R. & B. Co. v., 59 
 
 Ga. 73, 60 Id. 119 
 McDonald v. C. & N. W. R. R., 
 
 26 Iowa 124, 29 Id. 170 
 
 250, 251, 254, 273, 431 
 McDonough, Schuylkill Nav. Co. 
 
 v., 33 Penna. St. 73 148 
 
 McEnery, M. C. & C. Co. v., 8 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 81, 91 Penna. St. 
 
 185 301, 373, 468 
 
 McElwee, W. C. & P. R. R. v., 67 
 
 Penna. St. 311 422 
 
 McElroy v. M. & L. R. R., 4 Cush. 
 
 400 141, 233, 240 
 
 McElmurry, A. & S. R. R. v., 24 
 
 Ga. 75 60, 160 
 
 McGinnis v. C. S. B. Co., 49 Mich. 
 
 466, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 135 301, 302, 306, 338 
 McGearv v. C. R. R., 135 Mass. 
 
 363, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 407 91 
 
 McGowan, Gillespie v., 100 
 
 Penna. St. 144 183, 196 
 
 v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 61 
 
 Mo. 528 306, 323, 363 
 
 McGrath v. Merwin, 112 Mass. 
 
 467 65 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 59 N. Y. 
 
 468, 63 Id. 522 163, 165 
 
 McGrath v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R.,^* 
 Mass. , 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 5 349, 378 
 McGuire, Bartonshill Coal Co. v., 
 
 3 Macq. H. L. 307 356 
 
 McFarlane v. The Queen, 7 Can. 
 
 S. C. 216 413 
 
 Mclntyre v. N. Y. C. R. R., 37 
 
 N. Y. 287 287 
 
 McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Penna. St. 
 
 218 201, 422, 454 
 
 E. & T. H. R. R. v., 99 Ind. 
 
 519, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 366 110 
 
 McKeen, L. V. R. R. v., 90 Penna. 
 
 St. 122 13, 454 
 
 McKean, C. & R. I. R. R. v., 40 
 
 111. 218 173 
 
 McKeever, M. S. R. R. v., 59 Cal. 
 
 294 404 
 
 McKenna, Gould v., 86 Penna. 
 
 St. 297 31, 47 
 
 L. & N. R. R, v., 13 Lea 
 
 (Tenn.) 280, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 276 40 
 
 McKenzie v. McLecd, 10 B. & C. 
 
 385, 25 E. C. L. 102, 104 
 
 McKinley v. C. & N. W. Ry., 44 
 
 Iowa 314 114 
 
 McKinney, Farmers' Bank v., 7 
 
 Watts 214 
 McKune v. C. S. R. R., Cal. 
 , 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 589, 21 Id. 539 
 
 322, 370, 377 
 McLaughlin v. Pryor, 4 M. & G. 
 
 48, 43 E. C. L. 386, 388 
 
 C. & A. R. R. v., 47 111. 265 188 
 McLain, A. V. R. R. v., 91 Penna. 
 
 St. 442 389 
 
 McLeod, The Queen v., 8 Can. S. 
 
 C. 1, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 301 413 
 
 v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 162, 15 Id. 291 317, 355, 416 
 McKenzie v., 10 B. & C. 385, 
 
 25 E. C. L. 102, 104 
 
 McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 
 
 277 139 
 
 McLendon, S. & N. A. R. R. v., 
 
 <i:; Ala. 266 474 
 
 McLin, I. & V. R. R. v., 82 Ind. 
 
 435, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 ( as. 237 159 
 
 McManus v. Crickett, 1 East 107 
 
 108, 112 
 McMahon, C. C. Rv. v., 103 111. 
 
 485, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 68 111, 423
 
 lxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 M< Mahon v. N. C. Ry., 39 Md. 
 
 !'o 69, 73, 447 
 
 McMullen, Giblin v., L. R. 2 P. 
 
 C. 335 454 
 
 McNaughton t>. C. Ry., 19 Ct. of 
 
 Sess. Ca. 271 357 
 
 McPadden v. N.Y. C. R. R., 44 
 
 N.Y.478 _ 32, 233,240 
 
 McPherson, Hamilton v., 28 N. Y. 
 
 72 460 
 
 McQueen v. C. B. U. P. Ry., 30 
 
 Kans. 6.S9, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 226 211,307 
 
 McTighe, P. R. R. v., 46 Penna. 
 
 St. 216 436 
 
 McDermott v. P. R. R., 30 Mo. 
 
 115 305 
 
 v. II. & St. J. R. R., 73 Mo. 
 
 516, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 85 314, 330, 416 
 
 McClary v. S. C. P. R. R., 3 Neb. 
 
 54 233 
 
 McDaniel, N. & C. R. R. v., 12 
 
 Lea (Tenn.) 386, 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 60-1 381 
 McDonald, B., P. & C. R. R. v., 
 
 68 Ind. 316 280 
 
 McDonnell, B. C. P. R. R. v., 43 
 
 Md. 552 42 
 
 McDonoujrh v. M. R. R., 137 
 
 Mass. 210, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 354 291 
 
 Mel. R. R. v. Bolton, 43 Ohio St. 
 
 224, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 501 212, 371 
 
 M. C. & C. Co., McEnery v., 91 
 
 Penna. St. 185, 8 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 81 301, 373, 468 
 
 McCandliss, A., T. & S. F. R. R. 
 
 v., 33 Kans. 366, 22 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 296 377 
 
 McKinne v. C. S. R. R.. Cal. 
 , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 ( !as. 539 323 
 
 McKenna, L. & N. R. R. v., 7 
 
 Lea (Tenn.) 313, 2 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 114 160 
 
 McKone v. M. C. R. R., 51 Mich. 
 
 601, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 < las. 29 219, 254 
 McElligott, Dist. of Col. v., 117 
 
 U. S. 621 382 
 
 McKimble v. B. & M. R. R., 139 
 
 Mass. 542, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R R. Cas 213 405 
 
 McNeil, N. & J. R. R. v., 61 Miss. 
 
 434, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 < 'as. 518 247 
 
 McQuilkin v. C. P. R. R., 64 Cal. 
 463, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 510 259 
 
 M. C. R. R., Hayes v., Ill U. S. 
 
 22S, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 394 27, 41, 198, 434 
 
 Hoar v., 70 Me. 65 188,210 
 
 v. Coleman, 28 Mich, 440 
 
 260, 264, 416 
 Chase v., 77 Me. 62, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 356 175, 444 
 v. Gilbert, 46 Mich. 176, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 230 314 
 
 v. Neubeur, 62 Md. 391, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 261 54, 163, 169 
 
 v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 101 302, 309, 346 
 
 Pzolla v., 54 Mich. 273, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 334 190, 436 
 
 White v., 61 Wise. 536, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 213 276, 424 
 
 Whitney v., 69 Me. 208 152 
 
 State v., 76 Me. 357, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 312 
 
 168, 436 
 Blake v., 70 Me. 60 314, 368 
 
 Howd v., 50 Miss. 178 301, 314 
 v Dolan, 32 Mich. 510 314, 356 
 Rodman v., 55 Mich. 57, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 521 346, 364, 366 
 
 Cassidy v., 76 Me. 488, 17 
 
 Am.' & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 519 366, 381 
 
 Bottsford v., 33 Mich. 256 303 
 Bresnahan v., 49 Mich. 410, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 147 190 
 
 v. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77 469 
 
 Coolbroth v., 77 Me. 165, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 599 347 
 
 Corson v., 76 Me. 244, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 634 315 
 
 v. Austin, 40 Mich. 247 344 
 
 Hathaway v., 51 Mich. 253, 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 249 346, 373 
 
 Peck v, Mich. , 19 
 
 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 
 
 257 105, 165 
 
 Knowlton v., 59 Wise. 278, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 330 65, 274
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxix 
 
 M. C. R. R.. McKone v , 51 Mich. 
 
 601, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 29 219, 254 
 
 Dakl v., 62 Wise. 652, 19 
 
 im. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 121 76 
 
 Grows v., 67 Me. 100 171 
 State v., 77 Me. 244, 21 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 216 405 
 M., C. S. & W. Ry., Bohan v., 61 
 
 Wise. 391, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 276 428 
 
 Meeks v. S. P. R. R., 52 Cal. 604 192 
 v. S. P. Ry, 56 Cal. 513, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 314 54, 91, 196 
 
 Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 
 
 137 135 
 
 Meath, Flanders v., 27 Ga. 358 74 
 Meek v. Penna. Co., 3S Ohio St. 
 
 632, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 643 42 
 
 Meier v. P. R. R., 64 Penna. St. 
 
 225 233, 235, 240, 246 
 
 Mellors v. Shaw, 1 B. & S. 446, 
 
 101 E. C. L. 319 
 
 Melton, L. & N. R. R. v., 2 Lea 
 
 (Tenn.) 202 167 
 
 Merrill v. C. V. R, R., 54 Vt. 
 
 200, 11 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 680 222, 372 
 
 Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, 
 
 3 H. & N. 164, 11 H. L. 
 
 C. 686, L. R. 1 H. L. 93 
 
 37, 97, 129, 200, 201, 237, 329 
 Merchants' Bank, N. J. S. N. 
 
 Co. »., 6 How. 344 501, 503 
 v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604 454 
 Messmore v. N. Y. Shot Co., 40 
 
 N. Y. 422 460 
 
 Metropolitan Ry., Daniel v., L. 
 R. 3 C. P. 216, 591, 5 H. 
 L. 45 38, 129, 434, 442 
 
 Crafter !),LE.1C. P. 300 258 
 Gee v., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161 
 
 15, 63, 279, 280 
 v. Jackson, L. R. 3 App. 
 Cas. 198, L. R. 10 C. P. 
 49, 2 C. P. D. 125, 
 
 9, 24, 278, 451, 453, 454 
 Richardson v., L. R. 3 C. P. 
 
 374 278 
 
 Stanton v., 14 Allen 485 65 
 
 Metn. D. Ry., Woodley v., 2 Ex. 
 
 D. 384 349, 373 
 M. E. Rv., Lynch v., 90 N. Y.77, 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 119 110 
 
 Merwin, McGrath v., 112 Mass. 
 
 467 65 
 
 Merry, Wilson v., 1 Sc. & Div. 
 
 320, 331 290, 320, 354, 383 
 Metz v. B. C. & P. R. R., 58 K 
 
 Y. 61 135, 136 
 
 Meyer v. C. R. I. & P. R. R., 57 
 Iowa 555, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 527 302 
 
 v. M. P. R. R., 2 Neb. 320 
 
 36, 159, 195 
 v. Pacific R. R., 40 Mo. 153 54 
 Mehan v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R., 73 
 
 N. Y. 585 375 
 
 Messino, N. & C. R. R. v.. 1 
 
 Sneed (Tenn.) 220 207, 275 
 M. G. W. Ry., Broughton v., 1 
 
 I. C. L. 169 146 
 
 Cannon v., 6 Irish C. L. 199 280 
 M. H. & O. R. R., Malmstem v., 
 49 Mich. 94, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 291 86 
 
 Greenwald v., 49 Mich. 197, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 133 338, 364, 367 
 
 Marcott v., 47 Mich. 1, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 548 16!S 
 
 Michie, C. & B. R. R. v., 83 111. 
 
 427 188, 208, 209 
 
 Middlesex R. R., Maguire v., 115 
 
 Mass. 239 284, 290 
 
 Middle Level Commrs., Collins 
 
 v., L. R. 4 C. P. 279 39, 95 
 Midland Ry., Alton v. 19 C. B. 
 N. S. 243, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 390. 391, 400, 413 
 Bell v., 10 C. B. N. S. 287, 
 
 100 E. C. L. 471 
 
 Blake v., 18 Q. B. 93, 83 E. 
 
 C.L. 486,491,492, 493 
 Degg v., 1 H. & N. 773 
 
 212, 370, 371 
 Gibson v., 2 Ont. (Can.) 653 
 
 302, 345, 492 
 Home v., L. R. 8 C. P. 131 
 
 460, 462 
 Mytton v., 4 H. & N. 615 137 
 Readhead v., L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 412, 4 Id. 379 
 
 118, 231, 234, 237, 24( 
 Tunney v., L. R. 1 C. P. 291 
 
 210, 368 
 Wright v., L. R. 8 Ex. 137 
 
 39, 140 
 Miles, L. R. & F. S. Ry. «., 40 
 Ark. 298, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 10 
 
 205, 275, 288, 440 
 Mills, N. C. Ry. v., 61 Md. 355, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 160 481
 
 lxx 
 
 TABLE Or CASES CITED. 
 
 Miller v. P. & R. R. R-, 11 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 369 152 
 
 H. & G. N. R. R. v., 51 Tex. 
 
 270 338, 311 
 
 K. P. Ry. v., 2 Col. 442, 20 
 
 Am. Ry. Rep. 245 32, 440, 493 
 v. U. P. Ry., 17 Fed. Rep. 
 
 67, 12 Id. 600 307, 350, 382 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 128 Mass. 
 8, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 141 366 
 
 C. & N. W. Rv. v., 46 Mich. 
 532, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 89 75, 169 
 
 G. W. R. R. v., 19 Mich. 
 
 305 108 
 
 L. S. & M. S. Ry. v., 25 
 
 Mich. 274 86, 169 
 
 St. L , A. & T. H. R. R. v., 
 43 111. 199 135 
 
 Milligan v. Wedge, 12 A. & E. 
 737, 40 E. C. L. 
 
 102, 122, 123, 124 
 Millimann v. N. Y. C & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 66 N. Y. 642 74, 263, 292 
 Mill v. Hawker, L. R. 9 Ex. 309, 
 
 10 Id. 92 111 
 
 Mining Co., Carpenter v., 65 N. 
 
 Y. 43 134 
 
 Milam, L. & N. R. R. v., 10 Tenn. 
 223, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 507 158 
 
 Mills, C. W. D. Ry. v.. 105 111. 
 63, 11 Am. & Eng. R, R. 
 ( as. 128 263, 274 
 
 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry., 
 
 106 U. S. 312 4 
 
 Miranda, C. & N. W. Ry. v., 108 
 111. 576, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 564 384 
 
 Missouri R. R., Boland v., 36 
 
 Mo. 484 54, 69 
 
 Mitchell o. Crassweller, 13 C. B. 
 
 237, 76 E. C. L. 102, 104 
 
 v. Alestree, 1 Ventr. 295 434 
 
 C. R. R. v., 63 Ga. 177, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 145 305, 383 
 
 v. C & G. T. Ry., 51 Mich. 
 236, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 176 
 
 262, 265, 270, 434, 443 
 Raisin v., 9 C. & P. 613, 38 
 
 E. C. L. 54 
 
 Ravner v., 2 C. P. D. 357 102 
 
 r. W. & A. R. R., 30 Ga. 22 263 
 
 R. R. v., 11 Heisk. 400 439 
 
 Millikens, U. P. R. R. v., 8 Kans. 
 
 647 313 
 
 M. K. & T. R. R., Brown v., 64 
 
 Mo. 536 20b 
 
 Doss v., 59 Mo. 27, 8 Am. 
 
 Ry. Rep. 462 220, 264, 471 
 v. Long. 27 Kans. 684 156 
 
 v. "Weaver, 16 Kans. 456 470 
 
 M. L. S. & W. Rv., Howland v., 
 54 Wise. 226, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 578 349, 368 
 Bohen v., 58 Wise. 30, 15 
 Am. & Ent>'. R. R. Cas. 
 374, 61 Wise. 391, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 276 167 
 
 Bussian v., 56 Wise. 325, 10 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 716 
 
 152, 508 
 M. N. Co. v. Coons, 6 W. & S. 101 146 
 Mobile L. Ins. Co. v. Brame, 95 
 
 U. S. 754 399 
 
 Mock, C, & A. R. R. v., 88 111. 
 
 87 434 
 
 Modglin, 1. C. R. R. v., 85 111. 
 
 481 196, 377 
 
 Moffatt v. Bateman, L. R. 3 P. 
 
 C. 115 293 
 
 Mohnev v. Cook, 26 Penna. St. 
 
 342 65 
 
 Monaghan, C. & P. S. Ferry Co. 
 v., 10 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 46 282, 440 
 Monday, Indiana R. R. v., 21 Ind. 
 
 48 501 
 
 Moon v. R. & A. R. R., 78 Va. 
 745, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 531 
 S. Ex. Co. v., 39 Miss. 822 501 
 Moore r. N. Ry., L. R. 8 Q. B. 36 110 
 G. R. R.V, 59 Tex. 64 
 v. P. R R,, 11 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 310, 99 
 Penna. 301, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 569 73, 190, 196 
 v. F. R. R., 4 Gray 465 108 
 
 v. P., W. & B. R. R., 16 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 53 157, 169, 193 
 
 v. C, St. L. & N. O. R. R., 
 59 Miss. 243, 9 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R, Cas. 401 416 
 
 T. W. & W. Ry. v., 77 111. 
 
 217 299, 306, 446 
 
 R. & D. R. R. v., 78 Va. 93, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 239 307 
 
 A., T. & S. F. Rv. v., 29 Kans. 
 632, 11 Am." & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 243, 31 Kans. 197, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 312 329, 369
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxi 
 
 Moore v. W., St. L. & P. Ev., 84 
 Mo. 481, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 K. K. Cas. 509 347 
 
 C, H. & H. Ry. v., 59 Tex. 
 64, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 745 91 
 
 v. C. R. R., 47 Iowa 688 169 
 
 Rapho v., 68 Penna. St. 404 148 
 Morgan, P. R. R. v., 82 Penna. 
 
 St. 135 195 
 
 v. V. of N. Ry., 5 B. & S. 
 570, 117 E. C. L., L. R. 1 
 Q. B. 149 360, 368 
 
 Morey v. L. V. Coal Co., 55 Iowa 
 
 671 349 
 
 Morison, Joel v., 6 C. & P. 501, 
 
 25 E. C. L. 102 
 
 Moriartv v. L. C. & D. Ry., L. 
 
 R. 5 Q. B. 314 423 
 
 Morrison v. Davis, 20 Penna. St. 
 
 171 31 
 
 v. Erie Ry., 56*N. Y. 302 103 
 Morganstern, I. & St. L. Ry. v., 
 106 111. 216, 12 Am. & 
 En 2 . R. R. Cas. 228 364 
 
 Morris v. E. R. R., 126 Mass. 377 196 
 v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 43 Mo. 
 
 380 54 
 
 R. & D. R. R. v., 31 Gratt. 
 
 200 265 
 
 v. C. B. & Q. R. R., 45 Iowa 
 
 29 191, 196, 469 
 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Rv., 65 Iowa 
 727, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 180 409 
 
 v. Lichfield, 35 N H. 271 65 
 Morse v. Duncan, U. S. C. C S. 
 D. Miss., 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 374 466 
 
 M. & St. L. Ry. v., 30 Minn. 
 465, 11 Am. & Ens. R. R. 
 Cas. 168 349, 420, 421, 422 
 v. Slue, 1 Ventr. 238 498 
 
 Moss v. P. R. R., 49 Mo. 167 313, 314 
 Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 
 
 434 471 
 
 Mowery, I. R. R. v., 36 Ohio St. 
 418, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 361 15, 62, 274, 439 
 
 Montgomery, L. & M. M. Ry. v-, 
 
 7 Ind. 475 48 
 
 Moranda, U. & N. W. Ry. v., 93 
 
 111.302 370 
 
 Moyer, Norristown v., 67 Penna. 
 
 St. 355 148 
 
 Mooney v. II. R. R. R., 5 Robert- 
 son (N. Y.) 48 86 
 Moon v. R. & A. R. R., 78 Va. 
 745, 17 Am.& Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 531 324, 369, 370 
 
 Montclair r. Dana, 107 U. S. 162 454 
 M. P. R. R, Mackey v., 18 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 236 47 
 
 Mever v., 2 Neb 320 36, 159, 195 
 Yawter v., 84 Mo. 679, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 176 409 
 
 v. Wilson, 28 Kans. 639 160 
 
 v. Marten, Tex. , 22 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 409 282 
 
 Nagel v., 75 Mo. 653, 10 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 7U2 69, 186, 480 
 
 Hall v., 74 Mo. 298, 8 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 106 
 
 329, 369 
 v. Condon, 78 Mo. 567, 17 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 583 330, 369 
 
 Collier v., 62 Tex. 318, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 281 276 
 
 v. Halev, 25 Kans. 35, 5 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 594 
 
 299, 319, 383 
 v. Lyde, 57 Tex. 505, 11 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 188 
 
 346, 376, 432 
 Mason v., 27 Kans. S3, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1 
 
 190, 192 
 v. Nichols, 8 Kans. 505 217 
 
 Powell v., 76 Mo. SO, 8 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 467 
 
 158, 169 
 Rucker v., 61 Tex. 499, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 245 283 
 
 Rutter v., 81 Mo. 169, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 21 2 406 
 
 M. R. R. v. Blakelv, 59 Ala. 477 233 
 Festal v., 109 Mass. 720 275, 439 
 Mahoney v., 104 Mass. 73 380 
 Nichols v., 106 Mass. 463 274 
 Oram v., 112 Mass. 38 274 
 
 Wilton v., 107 Mass. 108, 125 
 
 Id. 130 209 
 
 Brown v., 64 Mo. 536 188 
 
 v. B. & C. R. R., 115 Mass. 
 
 347 133 
 
 Geddes v., 103 Mass. 391 282 
 Dougherty c, 81 Mo. 325, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 497 282, 440 
 
 M. Rv., Dawson v., 7 H. & N. 
 
 1037 274,439 
 
 Cliff v., L. R. 5 Q. B. 258 
 
 165, 166
 
 lxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 M. Ry., Phyfe v., 30 Hun (N. Y.) 
 
 277 25 
 
 King y., 11 Fed. Rep. 277, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. ('as. 
 119 330, 3G9 
 
 Lowery »., 99 N. Y. 158 20, 152 
 Levov v., 3 Ont. 623, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 478 166 
 
 Foulkes «., 4 C. P. D. 267, 5 
 
 Id. 157 217,218,206,269,390 
 McDonough v., 137 Mass. 
 210, 21 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 354 291 
 
 Potter v., 30 L. T. N. S. 765, 
 
 32 Id. 36 400 
 
 Searles v., 101 N. Y. 661 
 
 435, 441 
 M. R. & L. E. Ry., Whaalan v., 8 
 
 Ohio St. 249 356, 368 
 
 v. Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541 301 
 M. Ry. & C. Co , Perren v., 11 C. 
 
 B. 855, 73 E. C. L. 396 
 
 M. St. Ry., Dahlberg v., 32 Minn. 
 404, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 202 285 
 
 v. O, M. & St. P. Ry., 33 
 Minn. 62, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 362 168 
 
 M. S. & L. Ry., Austin v., 10 C. 
 
 B. 473, 70 E. C. L. 498 
 Bayley v., L. R. 7 C. P. 
 
 415, 8 Id. 148 106, 108, 109 
 Gill v., L. R. 8 Q. B. 186 217 
 Rigg v., 12 Jur. N. S. 525 259 
 M. S. R. R. v. McKeever, 59 Cal. 
 
 294 404 
 
 M. S. & N. J. R. R. v. Lantz, 29 
 
 Ind. 528 240 
 
 Woodward v., 10 Ohio St. 
 121 409 
 
 M. S. & N. I. Ry., Eissell v., 22 N. 
 
 Y. 258 43, 138, 414 
 
 M. S., J. & A. Ry. v. Fullerton, 
 14 C. B. N. S. 54, 108 E. 
 
 C. L. 151, 153 
 Muhling, O. & M. R. R. v., 30 
 
 111. 9 207, 210 
 
 Mulhado v. B. C. R. R., 30 N. Y. 
 
 370 274, 424 
 
 Mulhair, W. P. P. Ry. Co. v., 6 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 508 434 
 
 Muldowney v. I. C R. R., 36 
 
 Iowa 462, 39 Id. 615 
 
 50, 373, 374, 376 
 Mulherrin, D , L. & W. R R. v., 
 
 44 Penna. St. 375, 81 Id. 
 
 300 190, 227, 228 
 
 Mullen v. P. & S. M. S. S. Co., 78 
 
 Penna. St. 25 320, 322, 416 
 
 Mulliner, W. E. Canal Co. v., 68 
 
 Penna. St. 357 146 
 
 Munger, T. K. R. v., 5 Denio 267 50 
 Muim v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 130 4 
 
 Munroe, C. & A. R. R. v., 85 111. 
 
 25 373 
 
 Munson, Improvement Co. v., 14 
 
 Wall. 442 454 
 
 Durgin v., 9 Allen 396 305 
 
 Mumford, C. C. Ry. v., 97 111. 560, 
 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 312 274, 290 
 
 Murch v. C. R. R., 29 N. II. 9 ' 
 
 L38, 251, 292 
 Murdock v. B. & A. R. R., 133 
 Mass. 15, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 406 395, 467 
 
 Murphy v. Crossan, 98 Penna. St. 
 
 495 300 
 
 v. B. & A. R. R., 88 N. Y. 
 140, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 ( as. 510 306, 369 
 
 v. Deane, 101 Mass. 466 436 
 
 v. C , R. I. & P. R. R., 45 
 
 Iowa 661 436 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 
 N. Y. 445, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 490 493 
 
 v. Smith, 19 C. B. N. S. 361, 
 
 115 E. C. L. : 120, 340 
 
 v. St. L. & I. M. Ry., 71 Mo. 
 
 202 314 
 
 C, & A. R. B. R. v., 53 111. 
 
 336 368 
 
 B.&A.R.R.?>.,133Mass.l21 179 
 Murray v. Currie, L. R. 6 C. P. 
 
 24 102, 122 
 
 v. Phillips, 35 L. T. 477 300 
 
 Randleson v., 8 A. & E. 109, 
 
 35 E. C. L. 99, 123 
 
 v. S. C. R. R., 1 McMullan 
 385 350, 356, 366 
 
 Muschamp v. L. & P. Ry., 8 M. & 
 
 W. 421 137 
 
 Muster v. C , M. & St. P. Ry., 61 
 Wise. 325, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R.R. Cas. 113 
 
 102, 256,299, 318,443 
 Mulligan v. Curtis, 100 Mass. 
 
 512 70 
 
 M. V. R. R., Smith v., 13 Minn. 
 
 30 372 
 
 Myers v. Snyder, Brightly N. P. 
 
 489 148 
 
 C. V. R. R. v., 55 Penna. St. 
 
 288 212, 371 
 
 Emblen v., 6 II. & N. 54 471 
 II. & T. C. R. R. v., 55 Tex. 
 110, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. U 314,346,374
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxiii 
 
 Myers v. R. & D. R. R., 87 X. C. 
 345, 8 Am. & Eng. K. R. 
 Czs. 293 152 
 
 Myttcn v. Midland Ry., 4H.& 
 
 N. 615 137 
 
 M. & A. R. R. v. Mayes, 40 Ga. 
 
 355 125, 133, 141 
 
 M. &. C. R. R. v. Green, 52 Miss. 
 
 779 460 
 
 v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176 31 
 
 v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637 
 
 374, 375 
 Ragsdale v.. 3 Baxter (Tenn.) 
 
 426 323 
 
 Atkinson v., 15 Ohio St. 21 134 
 v. Hunter, 11 Wise. 160 156 
 
 v. Whitrield, 44 Miss. 466 257 
 v. Copeland, 01 Ala. 3. 6 
 
 266 283 
 M. & B. R. R., Salter v., 88 N.' 
 Y. 42, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 437 159 
 
 M. & I. Ry., Gillenwater v., 5 
 
 Ind. 339 208 
 
 M. & E. R. R., Haslan v., 4 
 
 Vroom 147 168 
 
 State v., 25 X J. L. 437 151 
 
 M. & L. R. R., Smith v., 18 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 304 367. 374 
 
 Gavett v., 16 Gray 501 63, 265 
 v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 32, 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 374 135, 264 
 
 M. & M. R. R. v. Finney, 10 
 
 Wise. 388 108, 416 
 
 v. Ashcroft, 48 Ala. 16, 49 
 
 Id. 305 276, 420, 471 
 
 Ball » , 67 Ala. 206 ' 367 
 Chamberlain v., 11 Wise. 
 
 238 216, 355, 369 
 
 Smoot v., 67 Ala. 13 303 
 
 v. Smith, 59 Ala. 245 363 
 
 v. Crenshaw, 65 Ala. 566, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 310 69 
 
 Donaldson v., 18 Iowa 280 
 
 431, 432, 493 
 M. & O. R. R. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 
 
 289 314 
 
 Rogers v., Lea (Tenn.) , 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 412 135 
 
 v. Thomas, 42 Ala. 672 306 
 
 v. Hopkins, 41 Ala. N. S. 
 489 502, 503 
 
 M. & P. R. R., Cooper v., 23 
 
 Wise. 668 315 
 
 Wilson v., 18 Ind. 226 367 
 
 M. & P., r. C. U. R., Spencer v., 
 
 17 Wise. 187 285 
 
 M. £ P., M. C. R. R., Delamatyr 
 
 v., _4 Wise. 578 264 
 
 Langhoff v , 19 Wise. 4S9 159 
 M. & St. L. Ry., Schemer v., 32 
 
 Minn. 125, 518, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 173 
 
 19i, 431, 432, 492 
 Fay v., 30 Minn. 231, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 193 309, 330 
 
 Freeman v., 28 Minn. 443, 7 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 410 133 
 
 Greene v., 31 Minn. 248, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 214 306 
 
 Madden v., 32 Minn. 303, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 63 348 
 
 Ransier v., 32 Minn. 331, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 601 307, 337 
 
 Russell v., 32 Minn. 230 377 
 
 Sweeney v., 33 Minn. 153, 
 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 302 374 
 
 Tierney v., 33 Minn. 311, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 543 330, 347, 369 
 
 Eldredge v., 32 Minn. 253, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 454 443 
 
 Brown v., 31 Minn. 553, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 333 366 
 
 v. Morse, 30 Minn. 465, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 168 349, 420, 421, 422 
 
 Kolsti v., 32 Minn. 133, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 140 186 
 
 M. & S. Kv, Whittaker v., L. R. 
 
 5GP. 464 n. 261,262 
 
 M. & St. P. Ry. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 
 
 495 8, 471 
 
 Butler v., 28 Wise. 4S7 166, 173 
 v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, 
 
 475 10, 13 
 
 Lucas v., 33 Wis. 41 209, 210 
 Keffe v., 21 Minn. 207 186 
 
 Rothe v., 21 Wise. 256 173 
 
 Schmidt v., 23 Wise. 186 
 
 28, 69, 19S 
 M. & W. R. R. v. Davis, 18 Ga. 
 
 679, 19 Id. 437 54 
 
 v. Davis, 27 Ga. 113 60 
 v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409 284 
 Sims v., 28 Ga. 93 193 
 v. Winn, 19 Ga 440 54 
 v. Winn, 26 Ga. 250 15
 
 lxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 M. & W. P. R. U. v. Boring, 51 
 
 Ga. 582 134 
 
 Nagel t>. M. P. Rv., 75 Mo. 653, 
 in Am &Eng.E. R. Cas. 
 
 702 69, 186, 480 
 
 Nagle v. A. V. R. E., 88 Penna. 
 
 St. 35 70 
 
 Napheys, U. L. & W. R. R. ?;., 
 
 90 Penna. St. 135, 1 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 52 
 
 270, 271, 443 
 Naylor v. C. & N. W. Ry., 53 
 
 Wise. 661, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 460 343, 349 
 
 N. A. & H. Ry., Hicks v., 4 B. 
 
 6 S. 403 n., 1 1 6 E. C. L. 494 
 N. A. & S. R. R., Fitzpatrick v., 
 
 7 Ind. 436 367 
 N. B. Cordage Co., Coombs v., 
 
 102 Mass. 522 338 
 
 N. B. & T. R. R., Lucas v., 
 
 Gray 65 220 
 
 N. B. R. R., Ladd v., 119 Mass. 
 
 412 306, 307 
 
 N. B. & M. R. R., Wheaton v., 
 
 36 Cal. 593 233 
 
 N. C. C. R. R., Hardy v., 74 N. 
 
 C. 734 303 
 
 N. C. R. R., Lambeth v., 66 N. 
 
 C. 494 264, 287 
 
 McComb v., 70 N. C. 178 416 
 Welker v., 1 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 210 31 
 
 Shauck v., 25 Md. 462 323 
 
 Turner v., 63 N. C. 522 65 
 
 Poole v., 8 Jones (N. C.) 340 75 
 v. Husson, 13 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 361, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 241 346 
 
 Gibson v., 22 Hun 289 335, 367 
 Painton v., 83 X. Y. 7, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 454 307, 346 
 
 Hawley v., 82 N. Y. 370, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 24S 3U5, 375, 382 
 
 v. Mills, 61 Md. 355, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 160 481 
 
 r. The State, 29 Md. 420 29 
 
 N. C. Ry., McMahon v., 39 Md. 
 
 69, 73, 447 
 v. State, 54 Md. 113, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 66 170 
 
 Ilanratliy v., 46 Md. 280 307 
 N., C. & St. L. R. R. v. Wheless, 
 
 10 Lea (Tenn.) 741, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 633, 15 Id. 315 346, 367 
 
 N., C. & St. L. R R., Jackson v., 
 13 Lea (Tenn.) 491, 19 
 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 433 24, 151 
 
 v. Foster, Tenn. , 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 180 335, 367 
 
 N. Co., Stiles v., 33 L. J. N. S. 
 
 311 145 
 
 Nebraska City v. Campbell, 2 
 
 Black (S. C.) 590 473 
 
 Needham v. S. F. & S. J. R. R., 
 
 37 Cal. 409 54 
 
 v. G. T. R. R., 38 Vt. 294 486 
 Nehrbas v. C. P. R. R., 62 Cal. 
 320, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 370 166 
 
 Neir v. W. P. Ry., 12 Mo. App. 
 
 35 481 
 
 Nelson v. A. & P. R. R., 68 Mo. 
 
 593 55, 265 
 
 v. V. C. R. R., 26 Vt. 717 
 
 133 141 
 v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 60 
 Wise. 320, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R.R. Cas. 391 373 
 
 N. E. Rv., Dickinson v., 2 H. & 
 
 C. 735 492 
 
 Buxton v., L. R. 3 Q. B. 549 138 
 Graham v., 18 C. B. N. S. 
 
 229,1 14 E. C. L. 221, 308,372 
 Hall v., L. R. 10 Q. B. 437 
 
 500, 502 
 Hammond v., 6 S. C. 130 216 
 Hetherington v.. 9 Q. B. D. 
 
 160 489 
 
 Holmes v., L. R. 4 Ex. 254, 
 
 6 id. 123 223, 372 
 
 Reynolds v., Roscoe's N. P. 
 
 591 217 
 
 Robson v., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 
 87, 10 Id. 371 
 
 266, 26S, 451, 454 
 Sykes v., 32 L. T. N. S. 199 489 
 Swainson v., 3 Ex. D. 341 372 
 Thompson v., 2 B. & S. 106, 
 
 110 E.G. L. 17, 54, 200 
 
 Rose v., 2 Ex. D. 248 266, 268 
 Oliver v., L. R. 9 Q. B. 409 156 
 Waite v., El. Bl. & El. 729, 
 
 96 E. C. L. 84, 88, 94 
 
 Wanless v., L. R. 6 Q. B. 481 164 
 Neubeur, M. C. R. R. v., 62 Md. 
 391, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 < as. 261 54, 163, 169 
 
 Newbold, Lygo v., 8 Ex. 302 91 
 
 Newell, C, C, C. & I. R. R. v., 75 
 Ind. 542, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 377 
 
 240, 275, 276, 439
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Newell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 260 130 
 
 Newsome, G. R. R. v., 60 Ga. 
 
 492, 66 Id. 57 151, 416 
 
 Newson, Randall v., 2 Q. B. D. 
 
 102 233 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 29 N. Y. 
 3S3 224 
 
 New River Co., Drew v., 6 C. & 
 
 P. 754, 25 E. C. L. 148 
 
 New Gas Co., Allen v., 1 Ex. D. 
 
 251 356 
 
 Newberry, Kevstone Bridge Co. 
 
 v., 96 Penna St. 243 323 
 
 Nevin v. P. P. C. Co., 106 111. 
 222, 11 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 ( las. 92 391 
 
 N. H. R. R., Chapman v., 19 N. 
 
 Y. 341 86 
 
 N. H. & N. Co., Coplev v., 136 
 Mass. 6, 19 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 373 173 
 
 N. H. S. & T. Co. v. Yanderbilt, 
 
 1 6 Conn. 421 54 
 
 N. H. & N. R. R., Gardner v., 51 
 Conn. 143, IS Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 170 188, 208, 209 
 Town of Hamden v., 27 
 
 Conn. 158 412 
 
 Keith i'., 140 Mass. 175, 23 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 421 310 
 
 Nichols v. Marsland, 2 Ex. D. 
 
 1 31 
 
 v. M. R. R., 106 Mass. 463 274 
 
 v. .Smith, 115 Mass. 332 136 
 
 M. P. Ry. v., 8 Kans. 505 217 
 
 Nicholls v. G. S. & W. Ry., 7 Ir. 
 
 C. L. 40 262 
 
 v. G. W. Ry., 27 Up. Can. 
 (Q. B.) 382 86 
 
 Nicholson v. L. & Y. Rv., 3 H. & 
 
 C. 534 255 
 
 v. Erie Ry., 41 N. Y. 525 
 
 40, 177, 178 
 v. Willan, 5 East 507 498 
 
 Nickerson, Severy v., 120 Mass. 
 
 306 177 
 
 Nickless, O. & M. Ry. v., 71 Ind. 
 
 271 205, 208 
 
 Nitro-Pliosphate Co. v. L. S. & 
 St. K. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. D. 
 503 41 
 
 Nieto v. Clark, 1 Clif. 145 114 
 
 Nix, S. C. R. R. v.. 68 Ga. 572 
 
 27, 409 
 N. J. R. R.. Bennett v., 36 N. J. 
 
 Law 22.") 86 
 
 Brokaw v., 3 Vroom 328 108 
 v. Kennard, 21 Penna. St. 
 203 284 
 
 N. J. R. R., Liscomb v., 6 Lans. 75 254 
 v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341 282, Uo 
 v. Palmer, 4 Vroom (N. J.) 
 
 90 136, 242 
 
 West v., 3 Vroom 91 166 
 
 N. J. R. & T. Co., Pollard v., 101 
 
 U. S. 223 395 
 
 N. J. S. Co., Caldwell v., 47 N. 
 
 Y. 290 235 
 
 N. J. S. N. Co., Dorr v., 4 Sandf. 
 
 S. C. 136 501 
 
 Hall v., 15 Conn. 539 502 
 
 v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 
 344 501, 503 
 
 N. J. S. Co., Cleveland v., 68 N. 
 
 Y. 306 204, 213 
 
 N. K. Rv., Withers v., 3 H. & 
 
 N. 969 29, 32 
 
 N. L. Rv., Bridges v., L. R. 6 Q. 
 B. 377, 7 H. L. 232 
 6, 261, 262, 266, 268, 450, 454 
 N. M. R. R., Kennedy v., 36 Mo. 
 
 351 54 
 
 N. N. Co., Emerson v., 2 Ont, 
 
 (Can.) 528 110 
 
 Noell, B. & O. R. R. v., 32 Grat. 
 
 394 493 
 
 Noel, P. C. & St. L. R. R. v., 77 
 Ind. 1 1 0, 7 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 524 436 
 
 Nolan v. B. C. & N. R. R., 87 N. 
 Y. 63, 3 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 463 290 
 
 Nolthenis, Street R R. v., 40 
 Ohio St. 376, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 191 150 
 
 Nolton v. W. R. R., 15 N. Y. 444 216 
 N. O. M. Ins. Co. v. N. O., J. & 
 
 G. N. R. R, 20 La. 302 501 
 N. O. R. R. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 
 
 607 263, 292 
 
 N. O. C. R. R-, Wardle v., 35 La. 
 An. 202, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 60 274 
 
 N. O. & C. R. R., Damont v., 9 
 
 La. An. 441 63, 265 
 
 Herrmann v., 11 La. An. 5 398 
 Hubeuer v., 23 La. An. 492 265 
 Hubgh v., 6 La. An. 495 
 
 306, 374, 398 
 Varillat v., 10 La. An. 88 471 
 Weeks v., 32 La. An. 615 74 
 
 Norton, L. S. N. R. R. v., 24 
 Penna. St. 465 
 
 56, 60, 61, 190, 191 
 v. E. R. E., 113 Mass. 366 153 
 Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Penna. 
 
 St. 355 148 
 
 Northrop v. Ry. P. A. Co., 43 N. 
 
 Y. 516 241
 
 lxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 N. O., J. & G. N. R. R., N. O. 
 
 M Ins. Co. v., 20 La. 302 501 
 
 v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 224 
 
 Albritson, 33 Miss. 242 274, 439 
 
 v. Hurst, 36 -Miss. 660 467, 471 
 
 N. O., J. & N. Ry. v. Hughes, 49 
 
 .Miss. 258 314 
 
 N. O., J. & S. R. R., Laicher v., 
 
 28 La. An. 320 75 
 
 N. O., M. & C. R. R, v. Hanning, 
 
 15 Wall. 649 123, 201 
 
 N. O., St. L. & C. R. R. v. Burke, 
 
 53 Miss. 200 281 
 
 N. O. & N. E. R. R. i>. Reese, 61 
 
 Miss. 5S1 122 
 
 N. P. Ry., Herbert v., Dak. , 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 85, 116 U.S. 642 307,331 
 
 Kresanowski v., 18 Fed. Rep. 
 
 229 374 
 
 McCune v, 18 Fed. Rep. 
 875, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 172 305 
 
 Gilmore v., 18 Fed. Rep. 
 866, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 304 323, 329, 369 
 
 N. P. R. R., Drayton v., 10 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 55 152 
 v. Heilman, 49 Penna. St. 60 168 
 v. Kirk, 90 Penna. St. 15, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 45 
 
 230, 490, 494 
 v. Mahoney, 57 Penna. St. 
 
 187 95 
 
 Mares v., Dak. , 17 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 620 436 
 Finney v., Dak. , 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 17 454 
 
 Ricard v., 89 Penna. St. 1 95 
 
 228, 229 
 v. Robinson, 44 Penna. St. 
 
 175 151, 486 
 
 Wilson v,, 26 Minn. 278 
 
 15, 233, 436 
 N. P. & O. C. M. Co. v. L. & St. 
 K. Docks Co., 9 Ch. D. 
 515 33 
 
 N. Ry., Edgar v., 4 Ont. (Can.) 
 201, 16 Am. &Eng.-R. R. 
 Cas. 347 ; 11 Ont. App. 452, 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 433 262, 264, 266 
 
 Alexander v., 33 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 474, 35 Id. 453 502 
 Moore v , L. R. 8 Q. B. 36 110 
 Watson v., 24 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 
 98 286 
 
 N. R. Co., Hill v., 9 B. & S. 303 
 
 39, 95 
 
 N. R. R., Fifield v., 42 N. H. 225 
 
 305, 344 
 Fuller v., 21 Conn. 557 263, 481 
 Wylde v., 53 N. Y. 156 413 
 
 N. S. Ry., Peek v., 10 IT. L. 
 
 473 499 
 
 N. S. S. I. Ferry, Crocberon v., 
 
 56 N. Y. 656 258 
 
 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 425, 
 
 444 29, 31 
 
 Nurdin, Lynch v , 1 Q. B. 29, 41 
 
 E. C. L. 39, 66, 90, 94, 187 
 N. Y. C. R. R., Alden v., 26 N. 
 
 Y. 102 235, 240 
 
 Bissell v., 25 N. Y. 442 502 
 
 Boldt v., 18 N. Y. 432 356, 375 
 Bowen v., 18 N. Y. 408 246 
 
 Brown v., 34 N. Y. 404, 32 
 
 Id. 600 166, 246, 275 
 
 Buel v., 31 N. Y. 314 15, 62 
 
 Bryan v., 31 Barb. 335 86 
 
 Cragin v., 51 N. Y. 64 502 
 
 Deyo v., 34 N. Y. 9 47 
 
 v. Lock wood, 17 Wall 357 
 
 8, 204, 233, 501, 505 
 Denny v., 13 Gray 481 31 
 
 Matteson v., 35 N. Y. 487 
 
 240, 275, 417 
 Perkins v., 24 N. Y. 196 8, 502 
 Mackay v., 35 N. Y. 75 166 
 
 Poucher v., 49 N. Y. 263 502 
 Richardson v., 45 N. Y. 846 166 
 Richardson v., 98 Mass. 85 409 
 Beisiegel v., 40 N. Y. 9 
 
 157, 162, 163 
 Smith v., 24 N. Y. 222 502, 503 
 Reed v., 56 Barb. 493, 45 N. 
 
 Y. 574 240, 420, 421, 422 
 
 Stinson v., 32 N. Y. 333 502 
 
 Sutton v., 66 N. Y. 243 177, 178 
 Wells v., 24 N. Y. 181 502 
 
 Hamilton v , 51 N. Y. 100 416 
 Owen v., 1 Lans. 108 302, 345 
 Wright v., 25 N. Y. 565 
 
 323, 356 
 Lanning v., 49 N. Y. 521 
 
 314, 330, 382 
 Mclntyre v., 37 N. Y. 287 287 
 McPadden v., 44 N. Y. 478 
 
 32, 235, 240 
 Renwick v., 36 N. Y. 132 
 
 163, 169 
 McGrath v., 59 N. Y. 468, 
 
 63 Id. 522 163, 165 
 
 W T eber v., 58 N. Y. 459 163 
 
 Maginnis v., 52 N. Y. 215 166 
 Newson v., 29 N. Y. 383 224 
 
 Dillave v., 56 Barb. 30 253 
 
 Lucas v., 21 Barb. [N. Y.) 
 245 398
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxx 
 
 XV11 
 
 N. Y. C. K. E., Stillvvell v., 34 
 
 N. Y. 29 166, 419 
 
 Hulburt v., 40 N. Y. 145 253 
 N. Y. C. & H.. R. R.R., Hoffman 
 
 v., 75 N. Y. 605 253 
 
 v. Hoffman. 87 N. Y. 25, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 537 109, 189 
 
 Kin-? v , 66 N. Y. 181 122 
 
 Cosgrove v., 87 N. Y. 88, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 35 
 
 160, 161 
 Connelly v., 88 N. Y. 346, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 459 170 
 
 Davis v., 47 N. Y. 400 169 
 
 Clesthorn v., 56 N. Y. 44 314 
 Jones v.. 28 Hun 364, 92 N. 
 
 Y. 628 310 
 
 Keating v., 49 N. Y. 673 273 
 Keating v., 98 N. Y. 128 263 
 Pakalinsky v., 82 N. Y. 424, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 251 162, 163 
 
 Stackus v., 79 N. Y. 464 169 
 
 Thorpe v., 76 N. Y. 402 136, 243 
 Schwier v., 90 N. Y. 558, 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 656 193 
 
 Murphy v., 88 N. Y. 445, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 
 
 490 493 
 
 Barry v., 98 N. Y. 289, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 
 
 615 69, 162, 179 
 
 Dowling v., 90 N. Y. 670, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 73 69 
 Reynolds v., 58 N. Y. 248 
 
 69, 70 
 Bvrne v., 83 N. Y. 620 69 
 
 Wendell v., 91 N Y. 420 73 
 
 Filer v., 49 N. Y. 47, 59 Id. 
 
 351 18,103,264,287,473 
 
 Waldete v., 95 N. Y. 275, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 400 418 
 
 Besel v. 70 N. Y. 171, 9 
 
 Bun 457 -818,368,369 
 
 Piper v., 56 N. Y. 630 306 
 
 King v., 72 N. Y. 607 306 
 
 Gale v., 76 N. Y. 594 470 
 
 Kellogg v., 79 N. Y. 72 169, 494 
 Hoffman v., 44 N. Y. Sup. 
 
 Ct. 1 445 
 
 Disher v , 94 N. Y. 622, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 233 301,307 
 
 Kirkpatrick v., 79 N. Y. 240 306 
 DeGraff" v., 76 N. Y. 125 
 
 235, 307, 373 
 
 N. Y. C. & H. R. R., Harvey v., 
 
 88 N. Y. 481, 8 Am. & Eng 
 
 R. R. Cas. 5i5 316,338 
 
 Sheehan v., 91 N. Y. 332, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 235 317 
 
 Peck v., 70 N. Y. 587 107 
 
 Byrne v.,. 94 N. Y. 12 160,161 
 Cordell v., 64 N. Y. 535, 70 
 
 Id. 119, 75 Id. 330 
 
 160, 171, 434 
 Culhane v., 60 N. Y. 133 427 
 Casey v., 78 N. Y. 518 416 
 
 Bras'sell v., 84 N. Y. 241, 3 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 380 254, 257 
 
 Waterbury v., 17 Fed. Rep. 
 
 671 188, 208, 210, 287, 445 
 
 Sauter v., 66 N. Y. 50 
 
 28, 431, 480 
 Ross v., 74 N. Y. 617 211, 369 
 Masterson v., 84 N. Y. 247, 
 
 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 408 86, 155 
 
 v. Vick, 95 N. Y 267, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 609 211 
 
 Robinson v., 66 N. Y. 11, 9 
 
 Fed. Rep. 877, 20 Blatch. 
 
 338 86, 238, 240, 275, 439 
 
 Millimann v., 66 N. Y. 642 
 
 74, 263, 292 
 Armstrong v., 64 N. Y. 635 257 
 Bucher v., 98 N. Y. 128, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 361 263, 264, 287 
 
 Hofnagle v., 55 N. Y. 608 122 
 Nye, Hyman v., 6.Q. B. D. 185 233 
 N. Y. E. R. R., Weston v., 75 N. 
 
 Y. 595 254 
 
 N. Y. & E. R. R., Hibbard v., 15 
 
 N.Y. 455 215,250 
 
 Oliver v., 1 Edm. S. C. 589 240 
 
 v. Young, 33 Penna. St. 175 146 
 
 Ransom v., 15 N. Y. 415 474 
 
 N. Y., N. H. & II. R. R. R., Peck 
 
 v , 50 Conn. 379, 14 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 633 
 
 87, 164, 168 
 N. Y, N. H. & H. R. R., People 
 v., 89 N. Y 266, 10 Am. &. 
 
 Eng. R R. Cas. 230 155 
 
 Weeks v., 72 N. Y. 50 281 
 
 N.Y. & II. R. R., Edgerton v., 
 
 39 N.Y. 227 274, 2S6, 292, 439 
 Baulec v., 59 N. Y. 356 314, 315 
 Saurmon v., 02 X. Y. 251 374 
 Oldheld v., 3 E. D. Smith 
 
 103, 14 N.Y. 310 436, 489 
 Gonzales v., 50 How. Pr. 126 265
 
 lxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 N. Y. & II. R. R., Smith v., 19 N. 
 
 Y. 2a7 240, 246, 301, 372 
 
 Kessenger v., 56 N, Y. 543 
 
 163, 166 
 Jetter v., 2 Abb. Ct. App. 
 
 Dec. 458 310 
 
 N. Y. & N. H. R. R., Coleman v., 
 
 106 Mass. 160 108 
 
 Judson v., 29 Conn. 434 156 
 
 Hughes v., 36 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 
 
 222 445 
 
 Colegrove v., 20 N. Y. 492, 6 
 
 Duer 382 86, 282, 286, 413 
 Isbell v., 27 Conn. 393 54 
 
 Lawrence v., 36 Conn. 63 502 
 Hood v., 22 Conn. 1, 23 Id. 
 
 609 44, 139 
 
 Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v., 
 
 25 Conn. 265 399 
 
 Daily i'., 32 Conn. 356 418 
 
 N.Y, L. E. & W. R. R, Strohm 
 
 v., 96 N. Y. 305 473 
 
 Debevoise v., 98 N. Y. 377 
 
 410 
 v. Haring, 47 N. J. L., 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 436 43 
 Knight v., 99 N. Y. 25 28 
 v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 
 
 161 86 
 v. Daugherty, 11 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 437 240, 246. 274, 439 
 Ellis v., 95 N. Y. 546, 17 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 641 303, 307, 337 
 
 v. Powers, 98 N. Y. 274, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 609 307, 374 
 
 Seybolt v., 95 N.Y. 562, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 162 216, 274, 435, 439, 503 
 Gottleib v , 29 Hun (N. Y.) 
 
 637, 100 N. Y. 462 309, 311 
 N. Y. & N. E. R. R., Darrigan v., 
 
 52 Conn. 285, 23 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 438 323 
 
 Tyler v., 137 Mass. 238, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 297 169 
 
 McGrath v., Mass. , 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 5 349, 378 
 
 N.Y. & W. Tel. Co. v. Dryburgh, 
 
 35 Penna. St. 298 99 
 
 N.Y. S. & W. R. R., Smith v., 
 
 46 N. J. L. 7, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 399 39 
 
 N.Y. Shot ( a., Messmore v., 
 
 40 N.Y. 422 460 
 
 N. Y. C. S. C. Co., Walton v., 139 
 Mass. 556, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 600, note 
 
 105, 256 
 N. & C. R. R. v. Erwin, Tenn. 
 , 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 465 15, 62, 286, 287 
 
 v. Eakin, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 
 
 582 409 
 
 v. Smith, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 470, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 469 191 
 
 v. Stevens, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 
 12 492, 493 
 
 v. Sprayberry, 9 Heisk. 
 
 (Tenn.) 852 409 
 
 Washburn v., 3 Head (Tenn.) 
 
 638 374 
 
 v. McDaniel, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 
 386, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 604 381 
 
 v. Carroll, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 
 347 60, 370 
 
 Sprayberry v., 8 Baxt. 
 
 (Tenn.) 341 139 
 
 v. Smith, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 
 174 167 
 
 v. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 
 220 207, 275 
 
 N. & D. R. R. v. Jones, 9 Heisk. 
 
 (Tenn.) 27 306 
 
 N. & G. Water-works Co., Atkin- 
 son v., L. R. 6 Ex. 404, 2 
 Ex. D. 441 42 
 
 N. & J. R. R. v. McNeil, 61 Miss. 
 434, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 518 247 
 
 N. & L. R R., McElroy v., 4 
 
 Cush. 400 141, 233, 240 
 
 N. & N. Y. T. Co.. Flint v., 34 
 
 Conn. 554 281 
 
 N. & P. R. R. v. Ormsby, 27 
 
 Gratt. 455 91 
 
 N. & W. R. R-, Flint v., 110 
 
 Mass. 222 152 
 
 Daley v., 26 Conn. 591 91 
 
 Oakland Ry. v. Fielding, 48 
 
 Penna. St. 320 68, 148, 150 
 Oaks, G. R. R. & B. Co. v., 52 
 
 Ga. 410 375 
 
 Oakman, Sawyer v., 7 Blatch. C. 
 
 C. 290 65 
 
 Oastler, Watling v., L. R. 6 Ex. 
 
 73 95, 344 
 
 Oakes v. Spaulding, 40 Vt. 347 145 
 O'Brien v. B. & W. R. R., 15 
 
 Gray 20 215 
 
 O. B. Coal Co. v. Read, 5 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 3 305
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxix 
 
 O'Connor v. B. & L. R. R., 135 
 Mass. 352, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 E. R Cas. 362 09, 70, 156, 180 
 v. Pittsburgh, 18 Penna. St. 
 
 187 146 
 
 Smith v., 48 Penna. St, 218 
 
 QS, 71, 193 
 O. C. R. R., Todd v., 3 Allen 18, 
 
 7 Id. 207 207 284 
 
 Warden »., 137 Mass. 204, 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 612 304, 306 
 
 O. C. & N. R. R., Gavnor v., 100 
 
 .Mass. 208 173, 257, 266 
 
 Sweeny v., 10 Allen (Mass.) 
 
 368 148, 163 
 
 Southworth v., 105 Mass. 
 342 154 
 
 O'Donnell v. A. V. R. R., 50 
 Penna. St. 490, 59 Id. 239 
 211, 240,286, 288, 305, 313 
 v. P. & W. R. R., 6 R. I. 
 211 160 
 
 O' Flaherty v. W. R. R., 45 Mo. 
 
 70 77 
 
 Ogden, C. C. R. R. v., 3 Colo. 499 
 
 329, 379 
 Ogier, P. R. R. v., 35 Penna. St. 
 
 60 162, 174 
 
 Ogle v. P., W. & B. R. R., 3 
 
 Houston 267 151 
 
 O'Hara, B., P. & W. R. R. »., 
 12 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 473 207, 208, 501 
 Ohrbv i'. Uyde Commrs., 5 B. & 
 
 " S. 743, 117 E. C. L. 200 
 
 Oil City Gas Co. v. Robinson, 99 
 
 Penna. St. 1 39 
 
 O'Keefe v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 
 
 32 Iowa 467 60 
 
 Oldfield v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 3 
 E. D. Smith 103, 14 X. 
 Y. 310 436, 439 
 
 O'Learv v. Mankato, 21 Minn. 
 
 65 422 
 
 Oliver, Briggs v., 4 II. & C. 408 200 
 v. N. Y. & E. R. R., 1 Edm. 
 
 S. C. 589 240 
 
 v. N. E. Rv., L. R. 9 Q. 15. 
 409 156 
 
 O'Mara v. H. R. R. R., 38 N. Y. 
 
 445 163, 167 
 
 Onion, Holmes v., 2 C. B. N. S. 
 
 790, 89 E. C. L. 103 
 
 O'Neill v. K. A D. M. Ry., 45 
 
 Iowa 546 374 
 
 O'Neil r. St. L., I. M. & S. R. 
 
 R., 9 Fed. Rep. 337 309 
 
 Oram v. M. R. R., 112 Mass. 38 274 
 
 H. & T. Ry. v., 49 Tex. 341 308 
 
 Ormond v. Holland, El. Bl. & 
 
 El. 102, 96 E. C. L. 297 
 
 Ormsby, N. A P. R. R. v., 27 
 
 < rratt. 455 91 
 
 Orr, Hvdraulic Works v., 83 
 
 Penna. St. 332 184, 196 
 
 L. & N. R. R. i'., 84 Ind. 50, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 94 300 306 
 
 O'Rorke v. U. P. Ry., Colo. 
 , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 19 347 
 
 O. Ry. & N. Co., Willis v., 11 
 Oregon 257, 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 539 323, 368 
 Walsh v., 10 Oregon 250 308 
 O. R. R., King v. (U. S. C. C. 
 Ind.), 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 119 377 
 
 Osborn v. Gillett, L. R. 8 Ex. 88 397 
 Osborne v. K. & L. R. R., 68 
 
 Me. 49 370 
 
 Ostertag v. P. R. R., 64 Mo. 421 73 
 Overton v. Freeman, 11 C. B. 
 
 867, 73 E. C L. 122 
 
 State v., 4 Zab. 438 215, 251 
 
 Owen v. Burnett, 4 Tyr. 133 7 
 
 Day v., 5 Mich. 520 251 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 1 Lans. 
 
 103 302, 345 
 
 v. Brocksmidt, 54 Mo. 285 493 
 Owings v. Jones, 9 Md. 117 42 
 
 Owston, Bank of New South 
 
 Wales c, 4 App. Cas. 270 110 
 O. & C. R, R., Cogswell v., 6 
 
 Oregon 417 75 
 
 Davis v., S Oregon 172 74, 420 
 O. & M. R. R. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 
 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 " 314, 315, 316, 330, 469, 470 
 v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317 ii4 
 Gormley v.. 72 Ind. 31, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 581 368 
 
 King v., U. S. C. C. Ind., 18 
 
 Am.&Eng.R.R.Cas.3S6 281 
 v. Nick less, 71 Ind. 271 205, 208 
 r. Selby 47 Ind. 471 
 
 204, 208, 276 
 v. Yaltez, 85 111. 500 
 
 363, 364, 368 
 v. Davis, 23 Ind. 55:; 135 
 
 r. Tindall, 13 Ind. 366 367 
 
 v. Dunbar, 20 III. 623 141 
 
 v. Muhling, 30 111. 9 207, 210 
 v. Gullett, 15 Ind. 487 256 
 
 r. Scbiebe, 44 111. 460 265 
 
 v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371 
 
 76, 418
 
 lxxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 O. & N. R. R. v. Stratton, 78 111. 
 
 88 103 
 
 O. & M. Packet Co. v. McCool, 
 Ind. , 8 Am. & Eng. 
 K. R. Cas. 390 440 
 
 O. & R. V. R. R. v. Martin, 14 
 
 Neb. 295, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 236 178, 183 
 
 v. Brown, 14 Neb. 170, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 501 32 
 
 Pacific R. R., Graham v., 66 Mo. 
 
 536 501 
 
 Pack v. The Mayor, 3 Comst. 
 
 489' 481 
 
 Packer, Sykes v., 99 Penna. St. 
 
 465 344 
 
 Packet Co. v. True, 88 111. 608 214 
 v. McCue, 17 Wall. 508 372 
 
 Pabst v. B. & P. R. R., 2 Mc- 
 
 Arthnr 42 262, 470 
 
 Page v. Defries, 7 B. & S. 137 99 
 
 F. R. R. v., 131 Mass. 391, 7 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 86 180 
 
 Paige v. Smith, 99 Mass. 395 136 
 
 Painter v. Pittsburgh, 46 Penna. 
 
 St. 213, 221 122 
 
 Paine v. G. T Rv., 53 N. H. 611 156 
 Painton v. N. C. By., 83 N. Y. 7, 
 
 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 454 307, 346 
 
 Palk, Lamb v., 9 C. & P. 629 (38 
 
 E. C. L.) 102 
 
 Palmer, N. J. R. R. v., 4 Vroom 
 
 (N. J.) 90 136, 242 
 
 Parks v. Ross, 11 How. 373 454 
 
 Parmalee, J. M. & I. R. R. v., 51 
 
 Ind. 42 263 
 
 1 Parnabv v. L. Canal Co., 11 Ad. 
 
 6 El. 223, 39 E. C. L. 200, 201 
 Parr, Jewell v., 13 C. B. 909, 76 
 
 E. C. L. 449, 454 
 
 Parmeter, Beach v., 23 Penna. 
 
 St. 197 35 
 
 Parrott v. Wells, 15 Wall. 524 434 
 Paterson v. Wallace, 1 Macq. II. 
 
 L. 748 314 
 
 Patterson v. P. & C. R. R., 76 
 
 Penna. St. 389 
 
 304, 306, 314, 330, 382 
 I. C. R. R. v., 93 111. 290, 69 
 
 Id. 650 60. 374 
 
 v. W., St. L. & P. Ry., 54 
 
 Mich. 91, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 130 218, 416 
 
 Patten v. Rea, 2 C. B. N. S. 606, 
 
 89 E. C. L. 99 
 
 Paulk, S. W. R. R. v., 24 Ga. 
 
 356 15, 62 
 
 PACiB 
 
 Patten r. C. & N. W. Rv., 32 
 
 Wise. 524, 36 Id 413 254 
 
 P. A. & M. P. Ry. v. Caldwell, 74 
 
 Penna. St. 421 95, 209 
 
 v. Donahue, 70 Penna. St. 
 
 119 109, 115 
 
 v. Pearson, 72 Penna. St. 169 
 
 76, 77 
 Parker v. W. & W. R. R., 86 N. 
 C. 221, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 420 168 
 
 Ind. Car Co. i'., 100 Ind. 101 
 
 303, 329 
 Paulmier v. E. Ry., 5 Vroom 
 
 151 305, 337 
 
 Payne v. Ross, 100 Penna. St. 
 
 301 374 
 
 St. L. & St. F. Rv. v., 29 
 Kans. 166, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 632 154, 160, 161 
 v. T. & B. R. R., 83 N. Y. 
 572, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 54 156 
 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 39 Iowa 
 
 523 86 
 
 v. T. & B. R. R., 9 Hun 
 (N. Y.) 526 422 
 
 Pakalinsky v. N. Y. C. & H. R. 
 R. R., 82 N. Y. 424, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 251 162, 163 
 
 Pantzar v. T. F. I. M. Co., 99 N. 
 
 Y. 368 320, 329, 330 
 
 Pawling v. U. S., 4 Cranch 221 454 
 P., B. & W. R. R. v. Rohrman, 
 13 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 258, 12 Am & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 15,62 
 P. C. & St. L. Ry., Cauley v., 95 
 Penna. St.' 39S, 98 Id. 498 
 76,109,115, 188, 189, 190, 
 
 196, 446 
 Cooper v., 24 W. Va. 37, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 564, note 330, 369 
 
 Cummings v., 92 Penna. St. 
 
 82 229 
 
 Fawcett v., 24 W. Va. 755, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 1 11 
 v. Henderson, 39 Ohio St. , 
 
 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 529 317 
 
 v. Leech, 41 Ohio St. 388, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 541, note 349 
 
 v. Noel, 77 Ind. 110, 7 Am. 
 
 6 Eng. R. R. Cas. 524 436 
 v. Rannev, 37 Ohio St. 665, 
 
 5 Am/& Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 533 367
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxxi 
 
 P C. & St. L. Ry., v. Spencer, 98 
 Ind. 186, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 478 8(3, 218, 457 
 v. Sponier, 85 Ind 1(55, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 458 151, 470, 474 
 
 v. Staler, 41 Ohio St. 118, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 381 24 
 
 Welsh v., 10 Ohio St. 75 501 
 v. Williams, 74 Ind. 402, 3 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 457 233, 240, 275, 420, 439 
 v. Thompson, 56 111. 138 
 
 233, 240, 248 
 v. Theobald, 51 Ind. 246 416 
 
 v. Vandyne, 57 Ind. 576 280 
 
 v. Wright, 80 Ind. 182, 5 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 628 416, 436 
 
 v. Yundt, 78 Ind. 373, 3 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 502 
 
 164, 165 
 v. Martin, 82 Ind. 476, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253 159, 169 
 v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222 215 
 P., C. P. Rv. v. Hassard, 75 
 
 Penna." St. 367 68, 291, 454 
 v., Henrice, 92 Penna. St. 
 431, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 544 195, 419 
 
 P. C. & D. Rv., Potts v., 8 W. R. 
 
 524 305 
 
 P. Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Penna. 
 
 St. 32 436, 454 
 
 Peck v. M. C. R. R., Mich. , 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 257 105, 165 
 
 Peck v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 70 N. Y. 587 107 
 
 Peachey v. Rowland, 13 C. B. 
 
 181, 76 E. C. L. 122 
 
 Peavey, K. P. Ry. v., 29 Kans. 
 170, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 ( las. 260 60, 384, 510 
 
 Peek v. N. S. Ry., 10 II. L. 
 473 499 
 
 Pearson v. Cox, 2 C. P. D. 369 122 
 P. A. & M. Ry. v., 72 Penna. 
 St. 169 76, 77 
 
 Pease v. C. & N. W. Ry.. 61 Wise. 
 163, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 527 327, 338, 346, 366 
 Pease, Rex v , 4 B. & Ad. 30, 24 
 
 E. C. L. 146 
 
 Peate, Bower v.. 1 Q. B. D. 326 97, 128 
 Peck v. N. Y., X. II. & H. R. R. 
 R., 50 Conn. 379, 14 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 633 
 
 87, 164, 168 
 
 Peer, Drew v., 93 Penna. St. 234 389 
 Pender, Heaven v., 11 Q. B. D. 
 
 507 7, 200, 202, 224 
 
 Penna. Co. v. Hoagland, 78 Ind. 
 
 203, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 436 262, 263, 467 
 
 v. Conlan, 101 111. 93, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243 
 
 364, 426 
 v. Lillv, 73 Ind. 252 490 
 
 v. Lynch, 90 111. 334 
 
 342, 374, 378 
 v. Galentine, 77 Ind. 320, 7 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R, Cas. 
 
 517 436 
 
 v. Roney, 89 Ind. 453, 12 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 223 
 
 60, 306, 375, 379 
 v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 1 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 225 
 
 138. 233, 240, 242, 276, 286, 432 
 v. Stoelke, 104 111. 201, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. • 
 
 523 347 
 
 Taylor v., 78 Ky. 348 409 
 
 v. Toomey, 91 Penna. St. 
 
 256 109, 115 
 
 v. Hankey, 93 111. 530 302, 376 
 v. James, 8H Penna. St. 194 
 
 77, 158, 196 
 v. Long, 94 Ind. 250, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 245 338, 341 
 Meek v., 38 Ohio St. 632, 13 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 643 42 
 
 Stewart v., Ind. , 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 679 148 
 
 Stoner v., 98 Ind. 3S4, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 340 27b 
 
 v. Boylan, 104 111. 595, 10 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 734 156 
 
 v. Gallagher, 40 Ohio St. 
 
 637, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 341 222 
 
 v. Hensil, 70 Ind. 569, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79 
 
 162, 164, 447 
 v. Rudel, 100 111. 603, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 30 416 
 
 v. Woodworth, 26 Ohio St. 
 
 585 216 
 
 Penna. Trans. Co., Ashmore v., 
 
 28 N. J.L.I SO 502 
 
 Pendleton v. Kinsley, 3 Clif. 
 
 416 114 
 
 Peniston v. O, St. L. & N. O. R. 
 
 R., 34 La. An. 777 254
 
 lxxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Perkins v. N. Y. C. E. K., 24 
 
 N. V. 196 8,502 
 
 v. C, St. L. & N. O. K. E., 
 60 Miss. 726, 21 Am. & 
 En-. B. B. 242 292 
 
 ». C. E. It., 44 N. H. 223 417 
 Perigo v. C, E. I. & P. E. E., 52 
 
 Iowa 276 373 
 
 Perren v. M. Ev. & C. Co., 11 C. 
 
 B. 855, 7*3 E. C. L. 396 
 
 Perry, C. E. E. v., 66 Ga. 746, 58 
 
 Id. 461 213, 261, 264 
 
 Pettit, Baird v., 70 Penna. St. 
 
 477 372 
 
 Peters v. Bylands, 20 Penna. St. 
 
 497 139 
 
 Peyton, W., St. L. & P. Ey. v., 
 
 106 111. 534 138, 217, 470 
 
 Perrv, Lansing v., 17 Hun 34 86 
 
 Peeples v. B. & A. E. E., 60 Ga. 
 
 287 114 
 
 People v. N. Y., N. H. & H. E. E, 
 89 N. Y. 266, 10 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 230 155 
 
 v. C. & A. Ey., 67 111. 118 155 
 Peoples, P. E. E'. v., 31 Ohio St. 
 
 537 390 
 
 Pescbel v. C. M. & St. P. Ey., 62 
 Wise. 338, 17 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 545 323, 338, 368 
 Peart v. G. T. Ey., 10 Ont. App. 
 191, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 239 160 
 
 Pence v. C, E. I. & P. Ey., 63 
 Iowa 746, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 366 168, 172 
 
 P., F. W. & C. E. E. v. Brigharn, 
 
 29 Ohio St. 374 31, 32, 177 
 v. Collins, 87 Penna St. 405 190 
 v. Evans, 53 Penna. St. 250 457 
 v. Dunn, 56 Penna. St. 280 
 
 155, 156, 163 
 v. Gilleland, 56 Penna. St. 
 
 445 31, 32 
 
 v. Hinds, 53 Penna. St. 512 
 
 39, 280 
 v. Lewis, 33 Ohio St. 196 
 
 323 367 
 v. Powers, 74 111. 341 316* 370 
 v. Euby, 38 Ind. 294 315 
 
 v. Vining, 27 Ind. 513 76 
 
 v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157 471 
 v. Devinney, 7 Ohio St. 197 356 
 P. G. & N. E. E. v. Wilt, 4 Wh. 
 
 143 388 
 
 Phelan v. Andrews, 52 Penna. 
 
 St. 486 460 
 
 Philadelphia, Hey v., 2 Weekly 
 
 Kotesof Cases (Penna.) 466 39 
 Live/^y v., 64 Penna. St. 106 31 
 
 Phillips v. S. W. Ey., 4 Q. B. D. 
 406, 5 Id. 85, 5 C. P. D. 
 280 470,473,414 
 
 Murrav v., 35 L. T. 477 300 
 
 v. E. & S. E. E., 49 N. Y. 
 
 177 264 
 
 v. E. & S. E. E., 57 Barb. 
 
 644 257, 273 
 
 v. V. M. & St. P. Ey., 64 
 Wise. 475, 23 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 453 323 
 
 Philippi, <J. B. E. E. v., 20 Kans. 
 
 12 160 
 
 Phyfe v. M. Ey., 30 Hun (N. Y.) 
 
 377 ' 25 
 
 P. H. & N. W. E. E, Dickinson 
 v, 53 Mich. 43, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 456, 18 N. 
 W. Eep. (Mich.) 553 275, 285 
 Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B. N S. 
 470, 100 E. C. L. 
 
 97, 122, 127, 200 
 D. S. P. & P. E. E. v., 8 Colo. 
 163, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 286, n. 264, 265 
 
 Pickford, Wyld v., 8 M. & W. 
 
 443 7 
 
 Pierce v. The Commonwealth, 14 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 97 4 
 
 Pillow, P. & C. E. E. v., 76 
 
 Penna. St. 510 281,440 
 
 Pinto, 11. & T. C. Ey. v., 60 Tex. 
 516, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 286 305 
 
 Pinkerton, Burton v., L. E. 2 Ex. 
 
 340 461 
 
 Piper, Gallagher v., 16 C. B. N. 
 S. 669, 111 E. C L. 
 
 323, 333, 434 
 Gregory v., 9 B. & C. 591, 17 
 
 E. C. L. 386, 387 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 56 
 /N.Y. 630 306 
 
 Piquegno v. C. & G. T. Ey., 52 
 'Mich. 40, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 210 344 
 
 Pittsburgh, Painter v., 46 Penna. 
 
 St. 213, 221 122 
 
 O'Connor v., 18 Penna. St. 
 
 187 146 
 
 v. Greer, 22 Penna. St. 54 
 
 39, 390 
 Coal Co. v. Foster, 59 Penna. 
 St. 365 460 
 
 Pixley, B., P. & C. Ey. v., 61 
 
 Ind. 22 467, 470 
 
 Plaver v. B, C. E. & N. E. E., 
 62 Iowa 723, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 112 283
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Piatt, C & A. R. R. v., 89 111. 141 
 
 304, 307, 346 
 Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 121 453 
 Plummer v. E. R. R., 73 Me. 591, 
 Am. & Eug. R. R. Cas. 
 165 169 
 
 Plunkett. A., T. & S. F. R. R. v., 
 25 Kans. 188, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 127 346 
 
 P., M. & M. R. R. v. Smith, 59 
 
 Ala. 245 314 
 
 Pointer, Laugher v., 5 B. & C. 
 
 547, 12 E. C. L. 102, 103, 120 
 Pondrum, C. & A. R. R. v., 51 111. 
 
 333 54, 284 
 
 Pollard v. N. J. R. & T. Co., 101 
 
 U. S. 223 395 
 
 N. J. R. R. v., 22 Wall. 341 
 
 2S2, 440 
 Pollock v. E. R. R., 124 Mass. 
 
 158 153 
 
 Pool v. C, M. & St. P. Rv., 53 
 Wise. 657, 56 Id. 227, 3 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 332, 8 Id. 360 
 
 205, 210, 2S6, 305, 307, 376 
 Poole v. N. C. R. R., 8 Jones (X. 
 
 C. ) 340 75 
 
 Poulson, Burns v., L. R. 8 C. P. 
 
 5U3 102 
 
 >orter v. H. & St. J. R. R., 71 
 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 44 
 
 304, 305, 329, 473, 474 
 
 v. E. R. R., 3 Vroom 261 471 
 
 Portland, Baker v., 58 Me. 199 65 
 
 Creraer v., 36 Wise. 92 47 
 
 Portsmouth, Sager v., 31 Me. 228 501 
 
 Potts v. P. C & D. Ry., 8 W. R. 
 
 521 305 
 
 Potter, Daniels v., 4 C. & P. 262, 
 
 19 E. C. L. 39, 95, 187 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Rv., 21 Wise. 
 
 372, 22 Id. 615 60, 489 
 
 v. Faulkner. 1 B. & S. 800, 
 
 101 E. C. L. 212, 370 
 
 Smith v., 46 Mich. 258, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 140 308, 314, 335, 346, 367 
 v. W. & W. R. R., 92 N. C. 
 511, 21 Am. &Eng. R. R. 
 ( us. 328 258 
 
 v. M. Rv., 30 L. T. N. S. 765, 
 32 Id. 36 400 
 
 Pa.cher v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. 
 
 Y. 263 502 
 
 Poundstone, Rockwood v., 38 111. 
 
 200 431 
 
 Poulton v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 
 
 2 Q. B. 534 110 ' 
 
 Powell v. P. R. R., 32 Penna. St. 
 
 414 250 
 
 C, C. & I. R. R. v., 40 Ind. 
 
 37 109,215,292 
 
 Sharp v., L. R. 7 C. P. 253 11 
 v. M. P. Rv., 76 Mo. 80, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 467 158, 169 
 
 Regina v., 9 Q. B. S06, 58 E. 
 C. L. 413 
 
 Powers. N. Y, L E. & W. R. R. 
 v., 98 N. Y, 274, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 609 307, 374 
 P., F. W. & C. R. R. v., 74 
 111. 341 316, 370 
 
 Pozzi v, Shipton, 8 Ad. & E. 963, 
 
 35 E. C. L. 390 
 
 P. P. C. Co. v. Bluhm, 109 111. 20 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cat,. 
 87 306, .480 
 
 v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344 233, 292 
 Henrich v., 20 Fed. Rep. 100, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 379 109 
 
 Kevin v., 108 111. 222, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 92 391 
 
 P. P. & J. R. R. v. Revnolds, 88 
 
 111. 418 240, 276 
 
 v. Siltman, 88 111. 529 166 
 
 P. P. Ry. v. Green, 56 Md. 84, 6 
 Am. Si Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 168 212, 371 
 
 v. Weiller, 17 Weeklv Xotes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 306 276, 440 
 Praeger v. B. & E. Ry., 24 L. T. 
 
 N. S. 105 266, 267 
 
 Pratt, Bett v., 33 Minn. 323, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 437 42 
 
 Preacher, Mann v., 40 Vt. 332 502 
 Prescott v. E. R. R., 113 Mass. 
 
 370 153 
 
 Presbyterian Societv v. A. & R. 
 
 R. R., 3 Hill" 367 4 
 
 Price, P. R. R. v., 96 Penna. St. 
 256, 113 U. S. 219, 1 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 234, 18 
 Id. 273 204, 216, 228, 229 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 77 Mo. 
 508, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 168 377 
 
 v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 
 72 Mo. 414, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 365 55, 264 
 
 Burton v., 57 Cal. 272 509 
 
 Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1 
 
 296, 344, 350 
 Priest v. II. R. E R., 6S N.Y. 
 
 589 114
 
 lxxxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Proctor v. Harris, 4 C. & P. 337, 
 
 19 E C. L. 148 
 Prvor, McLaughlin v., 4 M. & Gr. 
 
 48, 43 E. C. L. 386, 388 
 
 Pry v. H. & St. J. R. R., 73 Mo. 
 
 123 470 
 
 Prince v. I. & G. N. R. R., 64 
 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 152 208, 210 
 
 Pringle v. C, R. I. & P. Rv., 64 
 Iowa 613, 18 Am. &*Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 91 381, 417 
 
 P R. R. v. Ackerman, 74 Penna. 
 
 St. 265 158, 171 
 
 v. Aspell, 23 Penna. St. 147 
 
 22, 47, 63, 261, 262, 264 
 v. Allen, 53 Penna. St. 276 473 
 v. Bantom, 54 Penna. St. 495 
 
 492, 493 
 v. Beale, 73 Penna. St. 504 
 
 169, 171 
 v. Books, 57 Penna. St. 345 
 
 209, 445, 468, 471, 473 
 v. Barnett, 59 Penna. St. 259 
 
 151,153 
 v. Bock, 93 Penna. St. 427, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 20 76, 168, 395 
 v. Butler, 57 Penna. St. 336 
 
 207, 468, 491, 501 
 Brownell v., 47 Mo. 240 417 
 
 v. Adams, 55 Penna. St. 499 490 
 Carroll v., 12 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 348 
 
 169, 172, 260 
 v. Coon, 17 Weekly Notes of 
 
 Cases (Penna.) 137 158 
 
 Creed v., 86 Penna. St. 139 
 
 47, 56, 209, 250, 252, 287, 445 
 Dietrich v., 71 Penna. St. 
 
 432 215 
 
 Flower v., 69 Penna. St. 210 
 
 74, 115, 188, 196, 288, 370, 371 
 v. Fortnev, 90 Penna. St. 
 
 323, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 129 174, 441, 454 
 
 Frazier r., 38 Penna. St. 104 
 
 313, 314, 330, 356, 366, 373 
 Fleytas v., 18 La. An. (O. S.) 
 
 339 192 
 
 Gerard v., 12 Phila. 394, 5 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 251 229 
 
 Gillis v., 59 Penna. St. 139 177 
 Goldey v., 30 Penna. St. 242 205 
 v. Goodman, 62 Penna. St. 
 
 329 157, 481, 490 
 
 v. Henderson, 51 Penna. St. 
 
 315, 43 Id. 449 
 
 50, 205, 254, 422, 491, 501 
 
 P. R. R. v. Hope, 80 Penna. St. 
 
 373 13, 39 
 
 v. Horst, 16 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 567 151, 155 
 Hunt v., 51 Penna. St. 475 125 
 v. Keller, 67 Penna. St. 300 490 
 v. Kelly, 31 Penna. St. 372 
 
 68, 69, 151, 471, 482 
 v. Kilgore, 32 Penna. St. 292 
 
 18, 263, 264 
 Kirby v., 76 Penna. St. 506 
 
 225, 228 
 Knight v., 23 La. An. 462 265 
 Kay v., 65 Penna. St. 273 
 
 6. 68, 91, 92, 166, 179 
 v. Langdon. 92 Penna. St. 21, 
 
 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 87 251 , 252, 2S6, 288, 289, 495 
 Longenecker x., 105 Penna. 
 
 St. 328 163,427,444,454 
 
 v. Lewis, 79 Penna. St. 33 
 
 76, 77, 158, 196, 198 
 v. McCloskey, 23 Penna. St. 
 
 526 287, 492, 501 
 
 Meier v., 64 Penna. St. 225 
 
 233, 235, 240, 246 
 v. Matthews, 36 N. J. L. 531 
 
 163, 166 
 
 Moore v., 11 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 310, 99 
 
 Penna. St. 301, 4 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 569 
 
 73, 190, 196 
 v. McTighe, 46 Penna. St. 
 
 316 436 
 
 McDermott v., 30 Mo. 115 305 
 v. Morgan, 82 Penna. St. 135 ] 95 
 v. Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537 391 
 Powell v., 32 Penna. St. 414 250 
 v. Price, 96 Penna. St. 256, 
 113 U. S. 219, 1 Am. & 
 Eng R. R. Cas. 234, 18 
 Id. 273 204, 216, 228, 229 
 
 v. Ogier, 35 Penna. St. 60 
 
 162, 174 
 Richter v., 104 Penna. St. 
 
 511 228, 230 
 
 v. Righter, 42 N. J. Law 180, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 220 60, 169, 173 
 
 v. Shay, 82 Penna. St. 198 508 
 Schultz v., 6 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 69 158, 169 
 Schum v., 107 Penna. St. 8 
 
 174,444,447 
 v. Snicker, 105 Penna. St. 142 
 
 103, 474 
 v. Vandiver, 36 Penna. St. 
 298, 42 id. 365 
 
 107, 108, 109, 468, 491, 493
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxxv 
 
 P. E. R. v. Wachter, 60 Md. 395, 
 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 187 349, 368 
 
 v. Weber, 76 Penna. St. 157 
 
 174, 436, 444 
 Weger v., 55 Penna. St. 460 
 
 299, 323, 368 
 v. State, 61 Md. 108, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 326 
 
 166, 168, 447 
 Weed v., 17 1ST. Y. 362 108 
 
 Totten v., 11 Fed. Eep. 564 474 
 v. White, S8 Penna. St. 
 
 327 257, 259, 261, 262, 266, 269 
 Weiss v., 79 Penna. St. 387, 
 
 87 Id. 447 174, 444 
 
 v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 318, 37 
 Id. 420 
 
 250, 251, 259, 270, 272, 468, 
 492, 493 
 v. Werner, 89 Penna. St. 59 
 
 50, 436 
 Whitford v., 23 N. Y. 465 409 
 Moss v., 49 Mo. 169 313, 314 
 Eohback v., 43 Mo. 187 313, 368 
 Strong v., 61 Cal. 326, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 273 174 
 Ostertag v., 64 Mo. 421 73 
 
 Devitt v., 50 Mo. 302, 3 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 533 
 
 302, 345 
 P. Ev., Long v., 05 Mo. 225 330, 369 
 P., E. I. & St. L. Ey. v. Coultas, 
 
 67 111. 398 284 
 
 Probst v. Delamater, 100 1ST. Y. 
 
 266 301 
 
 P. S. Ev. v. Tavlor, 104 Penna. 
 
 St. 306 12, 24, 152, 154, 156, 471 
 P. S. & P. E. E., Tobin v., 59 Me. 
 
 183 220, 253 
 
 Knight v., 56 Me. 234, 57 
 Id. 202 136, 233, 241, 254, 470 
 Pulling v. G. E. Ey., 9 Q. B. D. 
 
 110 398 
 
 I'urnell v. Gr. W. Ey. (mentioned 
 by Mellish, L. J., in 2 C. 
 P. D. 210) 103 
 
 I url v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ev., 
 73 Mo. 168, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 27 75, L62 
 
 Puterbaugh v. Eeason, 9 Ohio 
 
 St. 484 S6 
 
 Putnam v. B. & S. A. E. E., 55 
 
 N. Y. 108 280 
 
 P.,W.&B. R.R. r. Brannon, 17 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 227 13, 26, 107 
 
 Moore v., 16 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 53 
 
 107, 169, 193 
 
 P., W. & B. E. E. v. Stinger, 78 
 Penna. St. 225 
 
 6, 146, 151, 154, 454 
 v. Stebbing, 62 Md. 504, 19 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 36 434 
 
 Foy v., 47 Md. 76 163 
 
 Gerety v., 81 Penna. St. 274 
 
 88, 169 
 v. The State, 58 Md. 372, 10 
 Am . & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 792 222, 372 
 
 State v., 47 Md. 76 172 
 
 Flinn v., 1 Houston (Del.) 
 
 469 205, 233 
 
 v. Keenan, 103 Penna. St. 
 
 124 307 
 
 Ogle v., 3 Houston 267 151 
 
 v. Quigley, 21 How. 213 471 
 
 State v., 60 Md. 555, 15 Am. 
 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 481 442 
 Burton v., 4 Harrington 252 152 
 v. Conway, 17 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 429 496 
 
 Pvm v. G N. Ey., 2 B. & S. 750, 
 110E.C.L., 4B.&S.390, 
 116 E. C. L. 87, 482 
 
 Pzolla v. M. C. E. E., 54 Mich. 
 273, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 334 190, 436 
 
 P. & A. Bridge Co., Henry v., 8 
 
 W. & S. 85 146 
 
 P. & C. E. E. o. McClurg. 56 
 
 Penna. St. 294 250, 251, 284 
 v. Pillow, 76 Penna. St. 510 
 
 281, 440 
 Patterson v., 76 Penna. St. 
 
 389 304, 306, 314, 330, 382 
 v. Sentmayer, 92 Penna. St. 
 276, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 508 301, ^02, 315, 378 
 v. Andrews, 39 Mil. 329 2S4, 447 
 P. & O. Canal Co. v. Graham, 63 
 
 Penna. St. 290 148. 149, 473 
 P. & L. E. E. E. v. Bruce, 102 
 
 Penna. St. 23 4 
 
 P. & N. Y. C. E. E. v. Lacey, 89 
 
 Penna. St. 458 13 
 
 P. & E. I. E. E. v. Lane, 83 111. 
 
 449 240, 286 
 
 P. & N. Y, N. & E. E. Co. v. Les- 
 lie, 16 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 321 
 
 306, 329, 369 
 P. & S. M. S. S. Co., Mullen v., 
 78 Penna. St. 25 
 
 320, 322, 416 
 P. & E. E. E. v. Commonwealth, 
 80 Ky. 147, 10 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 318 155
 
 lxxxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 P. & C. C. Co., Dorsey v., 42 Wise. 
 
 583 308 
 
 P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 
 
 Penna. St. 351, 6 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cits. J(i7 
 30, 31, 34, 233, 236, 240, 440 
 v. Agnew, 1 1 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 394 307 
 
 v. Boyer, 97 Penna. St. 91, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 172 
 42, 82, 86, 164, 168, 443, 495 
 Clark v., 5 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 1J9 
 
 190, 196, 434 
 v. Derby, 14 How. 469 
 
 99, 232, 233, 390 
 v. Heil, 5 Weekly Notes of 
 
 Cases (Penna.) 91 74, 434 
 
 v. Ervin, 89 Penna. St. 71 42 
 
 Miller v, 11 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 369 152 
 
 v. Hummell, 44 Penna. St. 
 
 375 190, 191, 196, 434 
 
 v. Killips, 88 Penna. St. 405 
 
 151,165, 447 
 v. Long, 75 Penna. St. 257 77, 158 
 Sullivan v., 30 Penna. St. 238 
 
 250, 274, 290, 439 
 v. Schertle, 97 Penna. St. 450, 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 158 
 
 299, 302, 305, 345, 373, 376, 454 
 v. Spearen, 47 Penna. St. 300 
 
 68, 190, 193, 434 
 Timlow v., 99 Penna. St. 284 4 
 v. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209 65 
 Troutman r., 11 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 455 166, 179 
 
 Gray v. (U. S. C. C. N. D. 
 N.Y.), 22 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 351 86 
 
 P. & T. R. R., F. & B. Turnpike 
 Co. v., 54 Penna. St. 345 
 
 6, 146, 245 
 P. & T. R. R.u. Hagan, 47 Penna. 
 
 St. 244 163, 174 
 
 P. & M. R. R, v. Hoehl, 12 Bush 
 
 (Ky.) 41 70 
 
 P. & W. R. R., O'Donnell v., 6 
 
 R. 1. 211 160 
 
 Boss v., R. I. , 21 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 364 264 
 Quaife v. C. & N.W. Ry., 48 
 
 Wise. 513 254 
 
 Quarles, Knight v., 2 Brod. & B. 
 
 102, 6 E. C. L. 400 
 
 Quarman v. Bennett, 6 M. & W. 
 
 499 102, 103, 120 
 
 Quigley, P., W. & B. R. R. v., 21 
 
 "l low. 213 471 
 
 Quimby v. Y. < I. K. It., 23 Vt. 387 158 
 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 69 Me. 340 2 V 3 
 
 v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306 138 
 
 Quinn v. i. C. R. R., 51 J 11. 495 284 
 
 Radley v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 
 
 9 Ex. 91, 10 Id. 100, 1 
 
 App. Cas. 754 53, 54 
 
 Ragsdale v. M. & C. R. R., 3 
 
 Baxter (Tenn.) 426 323 
 
 Rainbolt, B., S. (). & B. R. R. v., 
 
 99 Ind. 551, 21 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R Cas. 466 240, 440 
 Rains v. St L., I. M. & S. Ry., 
 
 71 Mo. 164, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 610 
 
 302, 323, 345,307,493 
 Raisin v. Mitchell, 9 C. & P. 613, 
 
 38 E. C. L. 54 
 
 Randall v. B. & O. R. R.. 109 U. 
 
 S. 478, 15 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 243 160, 247, 306, 344, 
 355,356,367,454 
 H. & G. N. Ry. v., 50 Tex. 
 
 254 305 
 
 v. C. R. R. R., 132 Mass. 
 
 209 169 
 
 v. Hayward, 5 Bing. N. C. 
 
 424' 476 
 
 v. Newson, 2 Q. B. D. 102 233 
 Randleson v. Murray, 8 A. & E. 
 
 109, 35 E. C. L. 99, 123 
 
 Randolph, C. & A. R. R. v., 53 
 
 111. 510 288 
 
 Ranney, P. C. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 
 37 Ohio St. 665, 5 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R R. Cas. 533 367 
 
 Rapho v. Moore, 68 Penna. St. 
 
 404 148 
 
 Rapson v. Cubitt, 9 M. & W. 710 
 
 102, 122 
 Rathburn v. B. & M. R. R., 16 
 
 Neb. 441, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 137 150 
 
 Ravenseroft v. Eyles, 2 Wils. 295 468 
 Raueh v. Lloyd, 51 Penna. St. 358 
 
 67, 68, 151 
 Raydure v. Knight, 2 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 713 39 
 
 Raymond v. B. C. R. & N. Ry., 
 
 65 Iowa 152, 13 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 6, 18 Id. 
 
 217 436 
 
 Rayner v. Mitchell, 2 C. P. D. 
 
 257 102 
 
 Ray, A. & C. A. L. R. R. v., 70 
 
 Ga. 674, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 281 373, 379
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxxvii 
 
 Kamsden v. B. & A. K. R., 104 
 
 Mass. 117 109, 110 
 
 Ransom v. N. Y. & E. R. R., 15 
 
 N.Y.415 474 
 
 v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry., 62 
 
 Wise. 178, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 16 160, 161 
 
 Ransier v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 
 
 MinnJ331, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 601 307, 337 
 
 Rasmusson v. C, R. I. & P. Ry-, 
 
 65 Iowa 236, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 54 349 
 
 RathboneV U. R. R., 13 R. I. 
 
 709, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 58 274 
 
 Read, I. C. R. R. v., 37 111. 484 502 
 v. G. E. By, L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 
 555 410, 509 
 
 Readhead v. Midland Ry., L. R. 
 
 2 Q. B. 412, 4 Id." 379 
 
 118, 231, 234, 237, 240 
 Reason, Puterbaugh v., 9 Obio 
 
 St. 484 86 
 
 Rector, W., St. L. & P. Ry. v., 
 104 111. 296, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 264 
 
 109, 213, 263, 265 
 Redmavne, G. W. Ry. v., L. R. 1 
 
 C. P. 329 460, 461 
 
 Rea, Patton v., 2 C. B. 1ST. S. 606, 
 
 89 E. C. L. 99 
 
 Reed v. Allegheny, 79 Penna. St. 
 
 300 122 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 56 Barb. 
 493, 45 N. Y. 574 
 
 240, 420, 421, 422 
 O. B. Coal Co v., 5 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 3 305 
 Shaw v., 9 W. & S. 72 99 
 
 Reese, N. O. & N. E. R. R. v., 
 
 61 Miss. 581 122 
 
 Barber v., 60 Miss. 906 29 
 
 Reedie v. L. & N. W. Ry., 4 Ex. 
 
 243 38,97, 102, 120, 125 
 
 Reeves, M. & C. R. R. v., 10 
 
 Wall. 17ii 31 
 
 v. D., L. & W. R. R., 30 
 Penna. St. 454 55, 60 
 
 Regents Canal Co , Wither! ey v., 
 12 C. B. N. S. 2, 104 E. 
 C. L. 52, 54, 88 
 
 Regina v. A rnaud & Powell, 9 Q. 
 
 .];. 806, 58 E. C. L. 413 
 
 Reid, Bartonsliill Coal Co. v., 3 
 Macq. H. L. 282, 4 Jur. 
 N. S. 767 
 
 07, 99, 100, 353, 355, 356 
 Bigelow v., 51 Me. 325 65 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30, 24 
 
 E. C L. 14G 
 
 Reliance Trans. Co., Atwood v. } 
 
 9 Watts 87 501 
 
 Renneker v. S. C. R. R., 20 Shand 
 
 (S. C.) 219, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 149 254, 259 
 
 Renwick v. N. Y. C. R. R., 36 N. 
 
 Y. 132 163, 169 
 
 Retford, A., T. & S. F. R. R. v., 
 
 18 Kans. 245 308 
 
 Reynolds, Abraham v., 5 H. & 
 
 N. 143 122, 342, 372 
 
 v. N. E. Ry., Roscoe's N. P. 
 
 591 217 
 
 P. P. & J. R. R. v., 88 111. 
 
 418 240, 276 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 5S N. Y. 248 69, 70 
 
 Rhoades v. C. & G. T. R. R.. 
 
 Mich. , 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 659 154, 427 
 
 Rhodes, G. R. R., 56 Ga. 645 
 
 15, 62, 376 
 Rhymney Ry., Thomas v., L. R. 
 
 6 Q. B. 266 138 
 
 Ricard v. N. P. R. R., 89 Penna. 
 
 St. 195 228, 229 
 
 Rice, L. L. & G. R. R. v., 10 
 
 Kans. 426 160 
 
 Richardson, Hilliard v., 3 Gray 
 
 349 " 122 
 
 v. G. E Ry., L. R. 10 C. P. 
 
 486, 1 C". P. D. 342 
 
 238, 240, 309 
 K. P. Ry. v.. 25 Kans. 391, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 96 163 
 
 v. Metropolitan Ry., L. R. 3 
 
 C. P. 374 278 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 45 N. Y. 
 
 846 166 
 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 98 Mass. 
 
 85 409 
 
 v. W- & M. R. R., 8 Rich. 
 
 L. 120 192 
 
 Rich, Bryant v., 106 Mass. 180, 
 
 202 114 
 
 Richards, C. R. R. t>., 62 Ga. 
 
 306 431 
 
 II. & T. C. Ry. v., 59 Tex. 
 
 373, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 64 191 
 
 Riches, Coleman v., 16 C. B. 104, 
 
 81 E. C L. 102 
 
 Richter v. P. R. R., 104 Penna. 
 
 St. 511 228 
 
 Rigby v. Hewitt, 5 Ex. 240 82 
 
 Rigg v. M. S. & L. lly., 12 Jur. 
 
 N. S. 525 259
 
 lxxxviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Eighter, P. R. R. v., 42 N. J. 
 
 Law ISO, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas.220 GO, 169, 173 
 Rilev v. Baxendale, 6 II. & N. 
 
 445 342 
 
 v. C. R. R. R., 135 Mass. 
 292, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 181 444 
 
 v. Home, 5 Bing. 217 498 
 
 J. M. & I. R. R. v., 39 Ind. 
 
 568 214, 255 
 
 T., P. & W. R. R. v., 47 111. 
 514 74 
 
 Ripon, Stewart v., 38 Wise. 584 292 
 Ritchie, R. & C. R. R. v., 102 
 Penna. St. 425, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 267 
 
 158, 169, 174, 444 
 Rider, H. & T. C. Ry. v., 62 Tex. 
 267, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 583 368 
 
 R., N. Y. & P. R. R., Brick v., 
 98 N. Y. 212, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 605 
 
 323, 328, 347, 368 
 Roach, C. R. R. v., 64 Ga. 635, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79 
 
 15, 62, 376, 491 
 Robinson v. II. & T. C. Ry., 46 
 
 Tex. 540 356, 373 
 
 r. Cone, 22 Vt. 213 91 
 
 C. & A. R. R. v., 106 111. 142, 
 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 620, 19 Id. 396 
 
 162,427,431 
 Oil City Gas Co. v., 99 Penna. 
 
 St. 1 39 
 
 N. P. R. R. v., 44 Penna. St. 
 
 175 151,486 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 66 N. Y. 11, 9 Fed. Rep. 
 877, 20 Blatch. 338 
 
 86, 238, 240, 275, 439 
 L. & N. R. R. v., 4 Bush 
 
 (Ky.) 507 366 
 
 v. F. & W. R. R., 7 Gray 92 434 
 Roberts v. C. & N. W. Ry., 35 
 
 Wise. 679 156, 166 
 
 v. Smith, 2 H. & N. 213 319 
 
 Robertson v. E. R. R., 22 Barb. 
 
 91 283 
 
 v. T., H. & I. R. R., 78 Ind. 
 77, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 175 367 
 
 Robbins, Chicago v., 2 Black. 418 127 
 v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 657 127, 412 
 v. Jones, 15 C. B. N. S. 221, 
 109 E. C. L. 148 
 
 Rockwood v. Poindstone, 38 111. 
 
 200 431 
 
 Robson v. N. E. Ry , L. R. 2 Q. 
 B. D. 87, 10"ld. 371 
 
 266, 268, 451, 45-1 
 Rodman v. M. C. Ry, 55 Mich. 
 57, 17 Am. & Eng. E. R. 
 Cas. 521 346, 364, 366 
 
 Eoe v. B. L. & C. J. Ey., 7 Ex. 
 
 36 _ 107, 110, 112, 113 
 
 Eogers, Bingham v., 6 W. & S. 
 
 495 501 
 
 v. M. & O. E. E., Lea 
 (Tenn.) , 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 442 135 
 
 v. R. Ry., 26 L. T. N. S. 879 257 
 r. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598 134 
 Rogstad v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 
 31 Minn. 208, 14 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 648 224 
 
 Rollback v. P. R. R., 43 Mo. 187 
 
 313, 368 
 Rohrman, P., B. & W. R. R. v., 
 13 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 258, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 15, 62 
 Roll, Gordon v., 4 Ex. 364 386, 388 
 Roller v. S. S. R. R., Cal. , 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 333 74, 76 
 
 Roome, Savaignac v., 6 T. R. 
 
 125 110 
 
 Roney, Penna. Co. v., 89 Ind. 453, 
 1 2 Am. & Eng. R. R . Cas. 
 223 60, 306, 375, 379 
 
 Roper, Hartfield v., 21 Wend. 
 
 615 91 
 
 Rosenberger, G. T. Ry. v., 8 Ont. 
 Ap. 482, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 448 ; 9 S. C. of 
 Can. 311, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 8 160,161 
 
 Rose v. B. & A. R. R., 58 N. Y. 
 
 217 316 
 
 B. & M. R. R. »., 11 Neb. 
 177, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 253 250, 251 
 
 v. D. M. V. R. R., 39 Iowa 
 
 246 208, 384, 502 
 
 v. N. E. Ry., 2 Ex. D. 248 
 
 266, 268 
 Ross, C, M. & St. P. Ry. v., 112 
 U. S. 377 
 
 324, 325, 326, 362, 369 
 Marble v., 124 Mass. 44 60 
 
 v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 
 
 74 N. Y. 617 211, 369 
 
 State v., 2 Dutcher 224 108 
 
 Parks v., 11 How. 373 454 
 
 Payne v., 100 Penna. St 301 374 
 
 Rothwell, Chapman v., E. Bl. & 
 
 E. 168, 96 E. C. L. 200
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 lxxxix 
 
 Rothe v. M. & St. P. Ry., 21 
 
 Wise. 256 173 
 
 Rounds v. D , L. & W. R. R., 64 
 
 N. Y. 137 114 
 
 Rourke v. White Moss. Colliery 
 Co., 2 C. P. D. 205 
 
 102, 103, 122, 126, 342 
 Rowan, C. & P. R. R. v., 06 
 Penna. St 393 
 
 174, 407, 436, 444, 492, 
 
 493 495 
 B. & O. & C. R. R. v., 104 
 Ind. 88, 23 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 390 302, 345 
 
 Rowland v. Cannon, 35 Ga. 105 88 
 Peachev v., 13 C. B. 181, 76 
 E C. L. 122 
 
 Rowley v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 
 "8 Ex. 22 
 
 431, 469, 475, 479, 484 
 Rowning v. Goodchild, 2 W. Bl. 
 
 906 40 
 
 Roy, Penna. Co. v., 102 U. S. 451, 
 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 225 136, 233, 240, 242, 
 
 276, 286, 432 
 Romick v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 62 
 Iowa 627, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 288 376 
 
 R. Ry., Latch v., 27 L. J. Exch. 
 155, 3 H. & N. (Am. ed.) 
 930 3S 
 
 Rogers v., 26 L. T. N. S. 879 257 
 v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. 400 439 
 v. Walker, 11 Heisk. (Term.) 
 
 383 60 
 
 Friedman v., 7 Phila. 203 417 
 R., R. I. & St. L. R. R. v. Delany, 
 
 82 111. 198 60, 490 
 
 v. Wells, 66 111. 321 127 
 
 R. T. Co. v. Vanderbilt, 2 N. Y. 
 
 479 112 
 
 Ruby, P , F. W. & C. R. R. v., 
 
 3S Ind. 294 315 
 
 RufFord. Beman v., 1 Sim. N. S. 
 
 550 133 
 
 Rung, C. & R. I. R. R. v., 104 
 111. 641, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 B. R. fas. 218 306 
 
 Rupp, Lehigh Iron Co. v., 12 
 Wecklv Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 47 407 
 
 Russell r. 11/ R. R. R., 17 N. Y. 
 
 134 211,356 
 
 C & R. I. R. R. v., 91 111. 
 
 298 308 
 
 v. M. & St. L. R. R., 32 
 Minn. 230 377 
 
 Rush, C. & A. R. R. v., 84 111. 
 
 670 374, 376 
 
 Rutherford, I. & C. R. R. v., 29 
 
 Ind. 83 284 
 
 Smith v., 2 S. & R. 360 387 
 
 Rudel, Penna. Co. v., 100 111. 603, 
 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 30 416 
 
 Rucker v. M. P. R. R., 61 Tex. 
 499, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 245 283 
 
 Rutter v. M. P. R. R., SI Mo. 
 169, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 212 406 
 
 R. W. & O. R. R., Webb v., 49 
 
 N. Y. 420 13 
 
 R. W. Ry., Brabbitts v., 38 Mo. 
 
 289 382 
 
 Ryan v. C. V. R. R., 23 Penna. 
 
 St. 384 211, 356, 367 
 
 v. C. & K W. Ry., 60 III. 
 171 330, 369 
 
 Ryde Commrs., Hartnall v., 4 B. 
 
 & S. 361, 116 E. C. L. 200 
 
 Commrs,, Ohrby v., 5 B. & 
 S. 743, 117 E. C. L. 200 
 
 Rrder v. Wombvvell, L. R. 4 Ex. 
 
 32, 40 450, 452 
 
 Rylands, Peters v., 20 Penna. St. 
 
 497 139 
 
 v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C. 774, 
 L. R. 1 Ex. 265 ; L. R. 3 
 H. L. 330 145 
 
 Ry. P. A. Co., Northrup v., 43 
 
 N. Y. 516 241 
 
 Theobald v., 10 Ex. 45 467 
 
 Ry., Taylor v., 48 N. II. 304 246 
 
 Waeker v., 39 N. Y. 469 235 
 
 v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345 
 
 26, 280 
 R. & C. R. R. v. Ritchie, 102 
 Penna. St. 425, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 267 
 
 158, 169, 174, 444 
 R. & D. R. R. v. Morris, 31 
 
 Gratt. 200 265 
 
 Cowles v., 84 N. C. 309, 2 
 Am. & Eng. K. R. ( las. 90 
 
 303, 323 324,370 
 Crutch field v., 78 N. C. 300, 
 
 76 Id. 320 337, 374 
 
 Clark v., 78 Va. 709, 18 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 78 302, 345 
 Dobbin v., 81 N. C. 446 323, 370 
 Myers v., 87 N. C. 345, 8 
 Am. & Engl R. R. Cas. 
 293 151 
 
 Johnson v., 81 N. C. 453 307 
 v. Moore, 78 Va. 93, 15 Am. 
 &Eng. R. R. Cas. 239 307 
 R. & S. R. K., Phillips v., 49 N. 
 
 Y. 177 264
 
 xc 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 R. & S. R. B., < tartis w., 18 N. Y. 534 
 
 38. 275. 434, 439, 440, 
 
 473, 474 
 Sherman v., 17 N. Y. 153 3G7 
 Phillips, 57 Barb. 644 257, 273 
 R. & B. R. R., Kimball v., 26 Vt. 
 
 247 502 
 
 R. & A. R. R., Moon v., 78 Va. 
 
 745, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 531 324, 369, 370 
 
 Sabolla v. Ins. Co., 54 Wise. 687 454 
 Sadler v. llenlock, 4 El. & Bl. 
 
 570, 82 E. C. L. 123 
 
 Sager v. Portsmouth, 31 Me. 228 501 
 Sales v. Western Stage Co., 4 
 
 Iowa 547 233 
 
 Saltonstall. Stokes v., 13 Peters 
 
 181' 15, 62, 439 
 
 Salter v. U. & B. R. B., 75 N. Y. 
 
 273 172 
 
 v. D. & H. C. Co., 3 Hun 
 
 (N. Y.) 338 422 
 
 v. M. & B. R. K. R., 88 N. 
 
 Y. 42, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 437 159 
 
 Sampson, Grier v., 27 Penna. St. 
 
 183 148 
 
 Salmon, K. P. By. v., 11 Kans. 
 
 83 211, 356 
 
 Sandford v. Eighth Ave. R. R., 
 
 23 N. Y. 343 50, 109 
 
 Sammon v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 62 
 
 N. Y. 251 374 
 
 Sanger, V. C. 11. R. v., 15 Gratt. 
 
 230 130, 233, 240 
 
 Sarch v. Blackburn, 4 C. & P. 
 
 297, 19 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Saunders v. L. & N. W. Ry., 8 
 
 C. B. N. S. 887, 98 E. 
 
 C.L. 481 
 
 Sauter v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 66 N. Y. 50 28, 431, 480 
 
 Savaignac v. Roome, 6 T. R. 125 110 
 Sawyer v. Oakman, 7 lilatck. C. 
 
 C. 290 65 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 37 Mo. 
 
 240 35, 235 
 
 Sayre, Walsh v., 52 How. Pr. 334 424 
 S. A. R. R-, Hendricks v., 44 N. 
 
 Y. Sup. Ct. 8 281 
 
 Furst v., 72 N. Y. 542 416 
 
 Jackson v., 47 N. Y. 274 109, 114 
 
 Ginna v., 67 N. Y. 596 291 
 
 Salisbury v. Hercheuroder, 106 
 
 Mas-. 45S 42 
 
 S. B. R. R., (iilshannon v., 10 
 
 Cush. 228 211, 356, 368 
 
 \ B. H. R. R., Hanlon v., 129 
 
 Mass. 310, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 18 42 
 
 PAdB 
 
 S. B. & N. Y. R. R., Tolnian v., 
 
 98 N. Y. 198 162, 175, 436 
 Mehan v., 73 N. Y. 585 375 
 
 Scammou v. Chicago, 25 111. 424 122 
 Schemer v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 
 
 Minn. 125, 518, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 17;! 
 
 191, 431, 432, 492 
 Scates, C. & N. W. Ry. v., 90 111. 
 
 586 254 
 
 Scheffer v. W. C. V. M. & G. S. 
 
 R. R., 105 U. S. 249 11,29 
 Schertle, P. & R. R. R. v., 97 
 
 Penna. St. 450, 2 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 158 
 
 299, 302, 305, 345, 373, 376, 454 
 Schall v. Cole, 107 Penna. St. 1 
 
 50, 301 
 School Pistrict of Erie v. Fuess, 
 
 98 Penna. St. 600 122 
 
 v. B. H. & E. R. R., 102 
 
 Mass 552 501 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 96 Penna. 
 
 St. 65, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 166 30, 31, 34 
 
 Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 Iowa 
 
 652 65 
 
 Schmidt, L. & N. R. R. v., 81 
 
 Ind. 264, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 248 151, 154 
 
 Schroeder v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 47 
 
 Iowa 375, 41 Id. 344 383, 424 
 Schopman v. B. & W. R. R., 9 
 
 Cush. 24 217, 233 
 
 Sclmchardt v. Allen, 1 Wall. 368 454 
 Schittenhelm v. L. & N. R. R., 
 Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. Ill 191, 193 
 
 Schum v. P. R. R., 107 Tenna. 
 
 St. 8 174, 444, 447 
 
 Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Donoutdi, 33 Penna. St. 7 3 148 
 Schwindling,^B. & O. R. R. v., 
 
 12 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 349,101 Penna. St. 258 177,196 
 Schultz v. P. R. R., 6 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases 69 158, 169 
 v. T. A. R. R., 89 N. Y. 242, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 579 109, 189, 412 
 
 v. C. M & St. P. Ry., 48 
 
 Wise. 375 330, 369 
 
 Schofield v. C M. & St. P. Ry-, 
 114 U. S. 615, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 353 169, 172 
 
 Scothorn v. S. S. Ry., 8 Ex. Jill 137 
 
 Schreger^. Garden, 11 C. V>. 851 396 
 
 Schilling v. Abernethy, 17 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 364 184
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XC1 
 
 Schiebe, O. & M. B. B. v., 44 
 
 111. 460 265 
 
 Schaufler, 8. & N. A. K. E. v., 
 75 Ala. 136, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. K. R. Cas. 405 265, 288 
 Schollen, Chicago v., 75 111. 468 
 
 482, 489 
 Schaefert v. C. M. & St. P. By., 
 62 Iowa 624, 14 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 696 171 
 
 Schmidt v. M. & St. P. Ey., 23 
 
 Wise. 186 28, 69, 198 
 
 H. & T. C. E. E. v., 61 Tex. 
 282, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 345 265 
 
 Schwier v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. 
 E., 90 N. Y. 558, 14 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 656 193 
 Scott v. D. & W. Ey., 11 Ir. Com. 
 
 Law 3<7 54 
 
 Gorris v., L. E. 9 Exch. 125 42 
 Gray v., 66 Penna. St. 345 68 
 v. Hunter, 46 Penna. St. 192 39 
 L. & St. K. Locks Co., 3 H. 
 
 & C. 596 438, 441 
 
 v. Mayor of Manchester, 1 
 
 H. & N. 59 122 
 
 v. Shepherd, 3 Wils. 403, 2 
 W. El. 892, 2 Sin. Lead. 
 Cas 797 9. 39, 95, 387 
 
 Scoville v. H. & St. J. E. E., 81 
 Mo. 434, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 534 55 
 
 S. C. E. R., Murray v., 1 Mc- 
 
 Mullan s535 350. 356, 366 
 
 Eenneker v., 20 Shand (S. 
 C.) 219, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 149 251, 259 
 
 Brickman v., 8 S. C. 173 305 
 
 v. Nix, 68 Ga. 572 27, 409 
 
 Marsh v., 56 Ga. 274 416, 423 
 S. C. & St. P. E. E., Keller v., 
 
 27 .Minn. 178 263, 419 
 
 Tread wav v., 40 Iowa 526 416 
 S. C. & P. Ey. v. Stout, 2 Dillon 
 
 294, 17 Wall. 657 69, 184 
 
 Locke v , 46 Iowa 109 
 
 240, 303, 305 
 Knapp v., 65 Iowa 91, 18 Am. 
 
 &Eng. U.K. (as. 60 26, 305 
 Mann v., 46 Iowa 637 305 
 
 v. Finlayson, 16 Neb. 272,18 
 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 
 
 306, 382, 424 
 Smith v.. 15 Neb. 583, 17 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 661 322, 323 
 
 Youll v., 56 Iowa 346, 21 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 589 338, 345 
 
 S. C. & P. Ey., Kitterinjrham v., 
 62 Iowa 285, li "..m. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 14 299 
 
 Scurr, C, St. L. & N. O. E. E. v., 
 59 Miss. 456, 6 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 341 263, 471 
 S. C. Co. v. Bonham, 9 W. & S. 
 
 27 134 
 
 S. C. P. E. E., McClary v., 3 
 
 Neb. 54 233 
 
 S. D. Ey. Beal v., 3 H. & C. ?A± 8 
 S. D. & P. M. E. E., McCaffertv 
 
 v., 61 N. Y. 178 122 
 
 Seaman v. F. L. & T. Co., 1 > 
 
 Wise. 578 489 
 
 Sears, C. E. E. v., 66 Ga. 409 471 
 C. E?E. v., 61 Ga. 279 379 
 
 Searle v. Laverick, L. E. 9 Q. B. 
 
 192 232 
 
 v. Lindsay, 11 C. B. N. S 
 429, 103 E. C. L. 356 
 
 Searles v. M. Ey., 101 N. Y. 661 
 
 435, 441 
 Seaver v. B. & M. E. E., 14 Gray 
 
 466 211,368 
 
 Insurance Co. v., 19 Wall. 
 531 11 
 
 Second Nat. Bank of Titusville, 
 Am. Ex. Co. v., 69 Penna. 
 St. 394 501 
 
 Secor v. T., P. & W. Ey., 10 Fed. 
 
 Eep. 15 265, 283 
 
 v. St. P., M. & M. Ey., 18 
 Fed. Eep. 221 209, 210 
 
 Selden, Collis v., L. E. 3 C. P. 
 
 495 177 
 
 Selby, O. & M. E. E. v., 47 Ind. 
 
 471 204, 208, 276 
 
 Senior v. Ward, 1 El. & El. 385, 
 
 102 E. C. L. 374 
 
 Sentmayer, P. & C. Ey. v., 92 
 Penna. St. 276, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 508 
 
 301, 302, 378 
 Seybolt v. N. Y., L. E, & W. E. 
 E., 95 N. Y. 562, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 162 
 
 216, 274, 435, 439, 503 
 Seymour v. C, B. & Q. E. E., 3 
 
 Biss. 43 139, 254 
 
 v. Greenwood, 7 II. & N. 354 
 
 107, 108 
 v. Maddox, 16 Q. B. 327, 71 
 E. C. L. 344 
 
 S. E. Ev., Ayles v., L. E. 3 Ex. 
 
 146 444 
 
 Armsworth v., 11 Jur. 758 
 
 469, 491 
 Burke v., 5 C. P. D. 1 500 
 
 Coleman v., 4 H. & C. 699 277
 
 XC11 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 S. E. Ry., Palton v., 4 C. B. N. S. 
 
 296, 93 E. C. L. 488, 493 
 
 Le Peintur v., 2 L. J. N. S. 
 
 170 460 
 
 Franklin v., 3 H. & N. 211 487 
 Lambkin, v., 5 App. Cas. 352 
 
 34, 275, 470 
 Waller v., 2 IT. & C. 102 
 
 356, 358, 363, 366 
 Walker v., L. E. 5 C. P. 
 
 640 112 
 
 Whitfield v., 1 El. Bl. &E1. 
 
 115, 96 E. C. L. 99, 107 
 
 Steel v., 16 C. B. 550, 81 E. 
 
 C. L. 122 
 
 Hogan v., 28 L. T. N. S. 
 
 271 281 
 
 Chant v., Weekly Notes 
 
 (Eng.) for 1866, p. 134 490 
 
 S. Ex. Co. p. Crook, 44 Ala. 46S 501 
 
 v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822 501 
 
 Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 
 
 306 177 
 
 S. F. & N. P. R. E., Hynes v., 65 
 Cal. 316, 20 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 486 28, 198 
 
 S. F. & S. J. R. R., Needham v., 
 
 37 Cal. 409 54 
 
 S. F., M. St R. R., Kramer v., 25 
 
 Cal. 434 397 
 
 Shacklet, W., St. L. & P. Ry. v., 
 105 111. 304, 12 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 166 
 
 86, 283, 413 
 Shafer, H. & T. C. R. R. v., 54 
 Tex. 641, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 421 417 
 
 Shaber v. St. P., M. & M. R. R., 
 28 Minn. 103, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 185 
 
 159, 162, 169,420,422 
 Sharp, Dobiecki v., 88 N. Y. 203, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 485 254, 256 
 
 Glushing v., 96 N.Y. 676, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 372 164 
 
 v. Gray, 9 Bing. 457, 23 E. 
 
 C. L. 232 
 
 v. Powell, L. R. 7 C. P. 253 11 
 Durkin v., 88 N. Y. 225, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 520 305, 330 
 
 Sharpless, Adams Ex. Co. v., 77 
 
 Penna. St. 517, 522 449 
 
 Shannon, C. & A. R. R. v., 43 
 
 111.338 301,482 
 
 Shaw, Mellors v., 1 B. & S. 446, 
 
 L01E. C. L. 319 
 
 v. Reed, 9 W. & S. 72 99 
 
 Shaw v. Jewett, 86 N. Y. 616, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 Ill 168,169,173 
 
 Shauck v. N. C. R. R., 25 Md. 
 
 462 323 
 
 Shause, Beckman v., 5 Rawle 
 
 179 501 
 
 Sharrod v. L. & N. W, Ry., 4 Ex. 
 
 580 389 
 
 Shay, P. R. R. v., 82 Penna. St. 
 
 198 508 
 
 Sheldon, Carlisle v., 38 Vt. 440 87 
 Shepherd, Scott v., 3 Wiis. 403, 
 
 2 Sm. Lead. Cas. 797, 2 W. 
 
 Bl. 892 9, 39, 95, 387 
 
 Sheridan v. B. & N. R. R., 36 N. 
 
 Y. 39 _ 290, 292 
 
 Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush. 147 
 
 114, 233 
 Sherman v. R. & S. R. R., 17 N. 
 
 Y. 153 367 
 
 v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 
 
 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 589 73,115,209,210, 
 
 212,286,370,371 
 Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Ind. 184 
 
 233 
 Sherstone, Tollitt v., 5 M. & W. 
 
 283 412 
 
 Sheffield G. C. Co., Ellis v., 2 E. 
 
 & B. 767, 75 E. C. L. 127 
 
 Shipton, Pozzi v., 8 Ad. & E. 
 
 963, 35 E. C. L. 390 
 
 Shires, L., N. A. & C. Ry. v., 108 
 
 111. 617, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 387 60, 431 
 
 Shoneman, McC'ullough v., 14 
 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 
 (Penna.) 395 102 
 
 Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 12 
 
 Wall. 369 293 
 
 Showers, G. R. & I. R. R. v., 71 
 
 Ind. 451, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R, Cas. 9 342 
 
 Shearer, S. & M. R. R. v., 58 Ala. 
 
 672 166 
 
 Sheehan v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 91 N. Y. 332, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 235 317 
 
 Shanks, L., N. A. & C. Ry. v., 94 
 
 Ind. 598, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 28 436 
 
 Siekings, L. & C. Ry. v., 5 Bush 
 
 1 54, 284 
 
 Sills v. Erown, 9 C. & P. 601, 38 
 
 E. C. L. 47, 48 
 
 Simmons v. C. & T. R. R., 110 
 
 111. 340, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 50 349
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XC111 
 
 Simmons, Borough of Susque- 
 hanna Depot v., 17 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 362 122 
 
 Smith v., 13 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases ( Peuna.) 242, 103 
 
 Penna. St. 32 122, 125 
 
 Simonson v. C, R. I. & P. Rv., 
 
 49 Iowa 19 431 
 
 Simpson v. Hand, 6 Wh. 311 
 
 47, 81, 86 
 v. L. G. Omnibus Co., L. R. 
 
 8 C. P. 390 434 
 
 Sims v. M. & W. R. R., 23 Ga. 
 
 93 193 
 
 Siner v. G. W. Rv., L. R. 3 Ex. 
 
 150, 4 Id. 117 18, 21, 63, 270 
 Singleton v. E. C. Ry., 7 C. B. X. 
 
 S. 287, 97 El C. L. 
 
 94, 195, 196 
 S. W. R. R. v., 66 Ga. 252, 
 
 67 Id. 306 
 
 188, 210, 265, 288, 443 
 v. S. W. Ry., 70 Ga 464, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 226 133 
 
 Sixth Ave. R. R., Drew v., 26 N. 
 
 Y. 49 489 
 
 Siltman, P., P. & J. R. R. v., 88 
 
 111. 529 166 
 
 S. I. Ry., Henry v., 81 X. Y. 373, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 60 307, 318, 368 
 
 S. J. R. R., Carroll v., 58 X. Y. 
 
 126 65, 235 
 
 S. J. & S. C. R. R., Jamison v., 
 
 55 Cal. 593, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 350 6, 233, 240, 241 
 Skellenger v. C. & N. W. Ry., 61 
 
 Iowa 714, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 208 346 
 
 Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 5 
 
 Ex. 797 206, 274,"390, 439 
 Skip v. E. C. Ry., 9 Ex. 223 318, 373 
 Skivington, George v., L. R. 5 
 
 Ex. 1 412 
 
 Skelton v. L. & N. W. Rv., L. 
 
 R.2C.P. " 165, 172 
 
 Slatton, I. C. R. R. v., 54 111. 133 205 
 Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 607, 
 
 38 E. C. L. 102 
 
 Slattery, D., W. & W. Rv. v., 3 
 
 App. Cas. 1155 174, 180, 
 260, 427, 436, 448, 452, 
 
 454, 457 
 v. H. W. Ry., 23 Ind. 81 31 
 Slater v. Jewett, 84 X. Y. 61, 5 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 515 316, 317, 326, 344, 
 
 362, 363, 366 
 
 Sloan, C. I. Ry. v., 62 Iowa 728, 
 
 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 145 135 
 
 Slue, Morse v., 1 Ventr. 238 498 
 
 Sly v. Edgeley, 6 Esp. 6 120 
 
 S. L. B. R. R. v. Lewark, 4 *nd. 
 
 471 224 
 
 v. Lvnch, 4 Ind. 494 224 
 
 Slusser, P., F. W. & C. R. R. v., 
 
 19 Ohio St. 157 471 
 
 Smedis v. B. & R. B. R. R., 88 
 
 N. Y. 13, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 445 157, 107, 175 
 Smead v. Foord, 1 El. & El. 602, 
 
 102 E. C. L. 460 
 
 Smith v. A., T. & S. F. R. R., 25 
 
 Kans. 738, 4 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 554 91 
 
 Bolch v., 7 H. & X. 736 176 
 
 Blumenthal v., 38 Vt. 402 136 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 120 Mass. 
 
 490 65 
 
 v. B. & S. Gas Light Co., 1 
 
 Ad. & El. 526, 28 E. C. L. 
 
 99, 112 
 Commonwealth v., 10 Allen 
 
 488 134 
 
 C. & X. W. Ry. v., 46 Mich. 
 
 504, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 535 112, 188, 189, 434 
 E., T. V. & G. R. R. v., 9 
 
 Lea (Tenn.) 685 307, 374 
 
 v. G. E. Rv., L. R. 2 C. P. 54 259 
 Hall v., 2 Bing. 156 122 
 
 v. H., M. & F. P. Ry., 92 
 
 Penna. St. 450 76 
 
 v. Home, 8 Taunt. 144, 4 E. 
 
 C. L. 7 
 
 v. Linton, 8 Gray 147 122 
 
 v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 5 
 
 0. P. 102 6, 39 
 
 v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 6 
 
 C. P. 14 12 
 
 v. L. & X. R. R., 75 Ala. 
 
 499, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 157 404 
 
 v. L. & St. K. Docks Co., L. 
 
 R. 3 C. P. 326 200 
 
 I. & G. W. Ry. v., 62 Tex. 
 
 252, 19 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 21 72 
 
 Kain v., 80 X. Y. 458, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545 
 
 136,301,330,413,414 
 M. & M. R. R. v., 59 Ala. 
 
 245 363 
 
 Murphy v., 19 C B. X. S. 
 
 361, 115 E. C. L. 320, 340 
 
 v. M. & L. R. R., 18 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 304 367, 374
 
 XC1V 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Smith, N. & C. R. R. v., 9 Lea 
 
 470, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Gas. 469 191 
 
 N. A: C. R. R. v., 6 Heisk. 
 
 171 167 
 
 Newel 1 v., 49 Vt. 260 136 
 
 Nichols v., 115 Mass. 332 136 
 v. N. Y. C. R. R., 24 N. Y. 
 
 222 502, 503 
 
 v. N. Y. & H. R. R. R., 19 
 
 N. Y. 227 240,246,301,372 
 v. N. Y. S. & W. R. R , 46 
 
 N.J. L. 7, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 399 39 
 
 Paige v., 99 Mass. 395 136 
 
 v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 140 ' 309, 314, 335, 346, 367 
 Pickard v., 10 C. B. N. S. 470, 
 
 100 E. C. L. 97, 122, 127, 200 
 Roberts v., 2 H. & N. 213 319 
 v. Rutherford, 2 S. & R. 
 
 360 387 
 
 Nugent v., 1 C. P. D. 425, 
 
 444 29, 31 
 
 v. O Connor, 48 Penna. St. 
 
 218 68, 71, 193 
 
 v. S. C. & P. R. R, 15 Neb. 
 
 583, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 561 322, 323 
 
 v. Simmons, 13 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 242, 103 Penna. St. 32 122, 125 
 
 Sprague v., 29 Vt. 421 134, 13S 
 v. St. L., K. C. & N. Rv., 69 
 
 Mo. 32 306, 345 
 
 v. St. P , M. & M. R. R., 30 
 
 Minn. 169, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 262 15, 28, 62 
 
 v. St. J. & H. R. R., 55 Mo. 
 
 556 482 
 
 v. St. P. C. Ry., 32 Minn. 1, 
 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 310 213, 274, 439 
 
 U. S. Bank v., 11 Wheaton 
 
 179 454 
 
 Venables v., 2 Q. B. D. 279 102 
 Walker v., 1 Wash. C. C. 
 
 152 468, 469 
 
 v. West Derby Local Board, 
 
 3 C. P. D. 423 148 
 
 v. Smith, 2 Pick. 621 86 
 
 P. M. & M. R. R. v., 59 Ala. 
 
 245 314 
 
 v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 42 
 
 Wise. 520 235,345 
 
 v. E. R. R., 124 Mass. 154 134 
 L., N., A. & C. R. R. v., 91 
 Ind. 119, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 608 156 
 
 PAd 
 
 Smithson, M. C. R. R. v., 45 Mich. 
 212, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 101 302, 309, 346 
 
 Smoot v. M. & M. Rv., 67 Ala. 
 
 13 303 
 
 Smyth, llounsell v., 7 C.B. N. S. 
 
 731, 97 E, C. L. 183 
 
 S. M. R. R., Gates v., 28 Minn. 
 110, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 237 
 
 31, 32, 300, 302, 303, 305 
 Kellv v., 28 Minn. 98, 6 Am. 
 & *Eng. R. R. Cas. 264 156, 422 
 S. Mining Co., Beauehamp v., 50 
 
 Mich. 163 29 
 
 Snow v. II. R. R., 8 Allen 441 
 
 221, 305, 372, 377 
 v. F. R. R., 136 .Mass. 552, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 161 102, 255 
 
 Snyder, Myers v., Brightly N. P. 
 
 489 148 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 60 Mo. 
 
 413* 74 
 
 B. & I. R. R. v., 24 Ohio St. 
 
 670 76 
 
 B. & I. R. R. v., 18 Ohio St. 
 399 91 
 
 Sneesby v. L. & Y. Ry., 1 Q. B. 
 
 D. 42 39 
 
 Somerville. Brooks v., 106 Mass. 
 
 271' 454 
 
 Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 
 
 246 177 
 
 Southcote's Case, 4 Rep. 84 498 
 
 Southwick, Coleman v., 9 Johns. 
 
 45 470 
 
 Southworth v. O. C. & N. R. R., 
 
 105 Mass. 342 154 
 
 Spaight ■(>. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 
 
 217 81 
 
 Sponier, P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 85 Ind. 165, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 453 151, 470, 474 
 Spear, Dexter v., 4 Mason 115 468 
 Spearen, P. & R. R. R. v., 47 
 Penna. St. 300 
 
 68, 190, 193, 434 
 Speer, C. & P. R. R. v., 56 Penna. 
 
 St. 325 146 
 
 Speed v. A. & P. R. R., 71 Mo. 
 303, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 77 125,133, 141,344 
 
 Speyer, Cleveland v., 16 C. B. N. 
 
 S. 399, 111 E. C. L. 371 
 
 Spencer, P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 US Ind. 186, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 478 
 
 86, 218, 457 
 v. Campbell, 9 W. & S. 32 390
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 xcv 
 
 Spencer v. M. & P. I. 0. R. R., 17 
 
 Wise. 487 285 
 
 v. I. C. R. R., 29 Iowa 55 169 
 Spooner v. B. C. R. R., 54 N. Y. 
 
 230 290 
 
 Spicker, P. R. R. v., 105 Penna. 
 
 St. 142 103, 474 
 
 D. & W. R. R. v., 61 Tex. 
 
 427, 21 Am.&Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 160 240, 436, 491 
 
 Sprague, Heeney v., 11 R. I. 456 42 
 v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421 134, 138 
 Sprayberry, N. & C. R. R. v., 8 
 
 Baxt. (Tenn.) 341 139, 409 
 Sproul v. Hemmingway, 14 Pick. 
 
 1 103 
 
 Sprong v B. & A. R. R., 58 N. 
 
 Y. 56 374 
 
 Spaulding, Oakes v., 40 Vt, 347 145 
 Spensley v. Insurance Co., 54 
 
 Wise. 433 454 
 
 8. P. Ry., Hahn v., 51 Cal. 605 152 
 Leahy v., Cal. , 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 230 307 
 Meeks v., 56 Cal. 513, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 314 54, 91, 196 
 
 Meeks v., 52 Cal. 604 192 
 
 8. P. C. R. R., Tennenbroock v., 
 
 59 Cal. 269, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 8 190, 192 
 
 Springett v. Ball, 4 F. & F. 472 470 
 S. R. R., Hurt v., 40 Miss. 391 204, 207 
 v. Jones, 30 Kans. 601, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 201 305, 307 
 
 v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374 
 
 262, 467, 471 
 S. R. & D. R. R., Lacy v., 43 
 
 Ga. 461 410 
 
 S. S. Ry., Scothorn v., 8 Ex. 341 137 
 S. S. R. R., Roller v., Cal. 
 
 19 Am.& Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 333 74, 76 
 
 Stackus v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 79 N. Y. 464 169 
 
 Stables, I. & St. L. R. R. v., 62 
 
 III. 313 473 
 
 Stallebrass, Hodsoll v., 11 Ad. & 
 
 El. 301, 39 E. C. L. 473 
 
 Stahl v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247 501 
 Staley, P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 
 41 Ohio St. 118, 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 381 24 
 
 Stanley, I Ionian v., 66 Penna. St. 
 
 461 148 
 
 Bouthcote v., 1 H. & N. 246 177 
 W. M. R. R. v., 61 Md. 266, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 206 15, 279 
 
 Stanton v. Metropolitan R. R., 
 
 14 Allen 485 65 
 
 Stanwix, Ashworth v., 3 El. & El. 
 
 701, 107 E. C. L. 319 
 
 Stapley v. L. B. & S. 0. Ry., L. 
 
 R. lEx.21 41, 164, 166, 172 
 Starry v. D. & L. W. R. R., 51 
 
 Iowa 419 436 
 
 State, B. & O. R. R. v., 29 Md. 
 
 252, 420 246 
 
 v. B. & O. R. R., 24 Md. 84 
 
 36, 54, 158, 233, 493 
 v. Overton, 4 Zab. 438 215, 251 
 P. R. R. v., 61 Md. 10 S 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 326 166, 168, 447 
 
 v. M. & E. R. R., 25 K J. 
 
 L. 437 151 
 
 v. E. & N. A. R. R., 67 Me. 
 
 479 134 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 33 Md. 542 
 
 54, 212, 372, 376 
 N. C. Ry. v., 29 Md. 420 29 
 v. Ross, 2 Butcher 224 108 
 v. D. & S. E. R. R,, 36 Ohio 
 
 St. 436, 5 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 312 155 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 41 Md. 268 
 
 318, 373, 491 
 v. G. T. Ry., 58 Me. 176 214, 436 
 P., W. & B. R. R v., 58 Md. 
 
 372, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 792 222, 372 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 60 Md. 449, 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 149 257, 283 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 63 Md. 135, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 202 287, 440, 490, 493 
 v. P., W. & B. R. R., 60 Md. 
 
 555, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 481 442 
 
 N. C. Ry. v., 54 Md. 113, 6 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 66 170 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v., 41 Md. 
 
 268 318 
 
 v. M. C. R. R., 77 Me. 244, 
 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 216 405 
 
 B. &0. R.R. »., 62 Md. 479, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 83 196,416, 434 
 
 v. M. C. R. R., 76 Me. 657, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 312 168, 436 
 
 v. P., W. & B. R. R., 47 Md. 
 
 76 172 
 
 C. & P. R. R. v., 44 Md. 
 283 306
 
 XCV1 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Stoddard ». St. L., K. C & N. 
 
 R. R., (55 Mo. 514 379 
 
 Statham, N. O. R. R. v., 42 
 
 .Miss. 607 263, 292 
 
 Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill 406 233 
 
 Stoddard ». L. 1. Ry., 5 Sandf. S. 
 
 C. ISO 501 
 
 Stoelke, Penna. Co. v., 104 111. 
 201, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 523 347 
 
 Stone v. Dickinson, 5 Allen 29 394 
 Forsdike v., L. R. 3 C. P. 607 476 
 v. Utica, 17 N. Y. 104 123 
 
 v. Jackson, 12 C. B. 199, 81 
 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Peters 
 
 181 15, 62, 439 
 
 v. E. C. Ry., 2 F. & F. 691 238 
 Storey v. Ashton, L. R. 4 Q. B. 
 
 476 102 
 
 Stott v. G. T. Rv.,' 24 Up. Can. 
 
 (C. P.) 347 151 
 
 Stout, S. C. & P. Ry. v., 2 Dillon 
 
 294, 17 Wall. 657 69, 184 
 
 I. & St. L. Ry. v., 53 Ind. 
 143 156 
 
 Stratton, O. & N. R. R. v., 78 111. 
 
 88 103 
 
 Strong, W. & A. R. R. v., 52 Ga. 
 
 461 510 
 
 Straus v. K. C, St. J. & C. B. 
 Ry., 75 Mo. 185. 6 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 384 263, 265 
 Strauss v. W., St. L. & P. Ry., 17 
 
 Fed. Rep. 209 34 
 
 Struthers v. D. W. & P. Rv., 87 
 
 Penna. St. 282 146 
 
 Strohm v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. 
 
 R., 96 N. Y. 305 473 
 
 Strieker, B. & O. R. R. v., 51 Md. 
 
 47 302, 345 
 
 Stublev v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 
 
 1 Ex. 13 163, 166 
 
 Stutler, F. & A., St. P. Ry. Co. 
 
 v., 54 Penna. St. 375 392, 413 
 Stumfs, C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 55 
 
 111. 367 427 
 
 State Bank, Merchants' Bank v., 
 
 10 Wall. 604 454 
 
 Stebbing, P., W. & B. R. R. v., 
 62 Md. 504, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 36 434 
 
 Steel v. S. E. Ry., 16 C, B. 550, 
 
 81 E. C. L. 122 
 
 Steele v. C. R. R., 43 Iowa 109 375 
 Steel, Couch v., 3 E. & B. 402, 77 
 
 E. C. L. 40 
 
 'Ueen, C. St. Ry. v., 42 Ark. 321, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 30 54, 471, 472 
 
 Stevens v. Armstrong, 2 Seld. 435 102 
 G. T. Ry. v., 95 U. S. Coo 
 
 4, 205, 501, 503 
 Harris v., 31 Vt. 79 213 
 
 Henderson v., L. R. 3 II. L. 
 
 Sc. & Div. 470 501 
 
 N. & C. R. R. v., 9 Heisk. 
 
 (Terra.) 12 492. 493 
 
 L. M. R. R v., 20 Ohio 416 
 
 323, 324, 369 
 v. Woodward, 6 Q. B. D. 318 102 
 Stewart, Brydon v., 2 Macq. H. 
 
 L. 30 314 
 
 v. Alcorn, 2 Weeklv Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 401 148 
 
 v. B. & C. R. R., 90 N. Y. 
 
 588, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 127 114, 117 
 
 Hunter v., 47 Me. 419 25 
 
 v. I. & G. N. Ry., 53 Tex. 289, 
 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 497 254 
 
 M., A. & B. Rv. v., 30 Kans. 
 
 226, 13 Am.' & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 503 426 
 
 D. Turnpike Co. v., 2 Mete. 
 (Ky.) 119 86 
 
 I. & G. N. Ry. v., 57 Tex. 
 166 470 
 
 E. T. V. & G. R. R., 13 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 432, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 614 306 
 
 v. Penna. Co., Ind. , 
 
 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 679 148 
 
 v. Ripon, 38 Wise. 584 292 
 
 Strin^liam v., 100 N. Y. 516 337 
 v. T. H. & I. R. R., 103 Ind. 
 
 44, 21 Am & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 209 405 
 
 Stringham, Stewart v., 100 N. Y. 
 
 516 337 
 
 Steinwav, Benzing v., 101 N. Y. 
 
 547 329 
 
 Stillwell v. KY. C.R. R., 34 N. 
 
 Y. 29 166, 419 
 
 Strong v. P. R. R., 61 Cal. 326, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 273 174 
 
 S.& P. R.R. v., 61 Cal. 326, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 273 153 
 
 St. John, E. T. V. & G. R. R. v., 
 
 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 524 196 
 
 Stiles v. A. & W. P. R. R., 65 Ga. 
 
 370, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 195 220, 272 
 
 Stringfellow, M. & L. R. R. R. v., 
 
 44 Ark. 32, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 374 264
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XCV11 
 
 Stoner v. Penna. Co., 98 Ind. 384, 
 21 Am. & Eng. K. R. Cas. 
 340 * 273 
 
 Strieker, Marshall v., 63 Mo. 308 323 
 Studebaker, Wolf v., 65 Penna. St. 
 
 459 460 
 
 Stumps, C, B. & Q. R. E. v., 69 
 
 111. 409 73 
 
 Steinbrenner, N. Y.. L. E. & W. 
 
 R. R. v., 47 N. J. L. 161 86 
 Stringfellow, M. & L. R. E. R. v., 
 44 Ark. 322, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 374 135 
 
 Stetler v. C. & N. W. Ry., 49 
 
 Wise. 609 138 
 
 Stead, C. I. Co. v., 95 U. S. 161 
 
 157, 158, 166, 169 
 Steinmetz v. Kelly, 72 Ind. 442 50 
 Stein v. G. A. Ry., 10 Phila. 440 418 
 Steinman, Bush v., 1 Bos. & Pul. 
 
 404 119 
 
 Steamboat Xew World v. King, 
 
 16 How. 469 8, 207, 233 
 
 Stead, C. I. Co. v., 95 U. S. 161 
 Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Penna. St. 
 
 439 55, 60 
 
 v. N. Co., 33 L. J. N. S. 311 145 
 Stinson v. N. Y. C. R. R., 32 N. 
 
 Y. 333 502 
 
 Stille, Martin v., 3 Whart. 337 395 
 •Stinger, P., W. & B. R. R. v., 78 
 Penna St. 225 
 
 6, 146, 151, 154, 454 
 St. L., A. & T. H. R. R. v. Miller, 
 
 43 111. 199 135 
 
 St. L., I. M. & S. R. R. v. Cantrell, 
 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 198 
 
 254, 264, 286, 287, 468, 474 
 v. Harper, 44 Ark. 524 306 
 
 v. Freeman, 36 Ark. 41, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 608 91, 482 
 
 v, Higgins, 44 Ark. 293, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 629 303 
 
 Klutts v., 75 Mo. 642, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 639 474, 480 
 
 Murphy v., 71 Mo. 202 314 
 
 Rains v., 71 Mo. 164, 8 Am. 
 & Eng. R R. Cas. 610 
 
 302, 323, 345, 307, 493 
 George v., 34 Ark. 613, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 294 
 
 240, 275,439,508 
 Langan v., 72 Mo. 392, 3 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 355 220, 256 
 
 Wallace v., 74 Mo. 594 158, 318 
 
 Q 
 
 St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., O'Neil 
 
 v., 9 Fed. Rep. 337 309 
 
 St. L. & I. M. R. R.. McGowan 
 
 v., 61 Mo. 528 306, 323, 363 
 Elliott v., 67 Mo. 272 314 
 
 Gowan v., 61 Mo. 528 323 
 
 Koons v., 65 Mo. 592 186 
 
 Lewis v., 59 Mo. 495 
 
 305, 329, 369 
 St. L. & St. F. Ry. v. Pavne, 29 
 
 Kans. 166, 13 Am."& Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 332 154, 160, 161 
 St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Britz, 72 111. 
 
 261 342, 368 
 
 v. Matthias, 50 Ind. 65 167 
 
 v. Valirius, 56 Ind. 511 
 
 301, 30(5, 309, 338 
 St. L., A. & T. H. R. R., Thaver 
 
 v., 22 Ind 26 42,'54, 323 
 
 Street R. R. v. Nolthenis, 40 Ohio 
 
 St. 376, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 191 ' 150 
 
 St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., El let 
 
 v., 76 Mo. 518, 12 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 183 34, 277 
 Harlan v., 64 Mo. 480, 65 
 
 Mo. 22 55, 190 
 
 Dale v., 63 Mo. 455 303, 375 
 
 Henry v., 76 Mo. 288, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 136 26, 283 
 
 Smith v., 69 Mo. 32 305, 345 
 
 Hulett v., 67 Mo. 239 303, 376 
 Blessing v., 77 Mo. 410, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 298 366 
 Frick p., 75 Mo. 595, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 
 77,91,157,159,167, 196,482 
 Gibson v., 8 Mo. App. 488 151 
 Price v., 72 Mo. 414, 3 Ami & 
 
 Enc. R. R. Cas. 365 55, 264 
 v. Trigg, 74 Mo. 147, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345 
 
 25, 263, 459, 466 
 Whalen v., 60 Mo. 323 474 
 
 Stoddard v., 65 Mo. 514 379 
 
 v. Marshall, 78 Mo. 610, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 248 25, 466 
 
 Ely v., 77 Mo. 34, 16 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 342 32, 422 
 Hoke v., 11 Mo. App. 575 368 
 Purl v., 73 Mo. 168, 6 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 27 75, 162 
 Hodges v., 71 Mo. 50, 2 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 190 
 
 160, 161 
 Henze v., 71 Mo. 636, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 212 169, 173
 
 XCV111 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., Yarnall 
 
 v., 75 Mo. 575, 10 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. (.'as. 726 190 
 
 St. L. T. Co., Francis v., 5 Mo. 
 
 App. Cas. 7 25, 466 
 
 St. L. & S. P. Ry. f>. Marker, 41 
 
 Ark. 542 376 
 
 St. P., D. & P. M. R R, Ditchett 
 
 v., 67 N. Y. 425 133 
 
 St. P., M. & M. Ry., Hutchinson 
 
 «., 32 Minn. 398, 19 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 
 
 166, 169 
 Fraker v., 32 Minn. 54, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 256 323, 346, 36S, 369 
 
 Fitzgerald v., 29 Minn. 336, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 310 28, 42, 91, 198 
 
 Mark v., 30 Minn. 493, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 86 50, 62 
 
 Buenemann v., 32 Minn. 390, 
 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 153 254 
 
 Secor v., 18 Fed. Rep. 221 
 
 209, 210 
 Shaber v., 28 Minn. 103, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 185 159, 163, 169, 420, 422 
 Smith v., 30 Minn. 169, 9 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 262 15, 28, 62 
 
 Howard v., 32 Minn. 214, 19 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 283 166 
 
 Faber v., 29 Minn. 465, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 277 460 
 
 Kelly v., 29 Mich. 1, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng R. R. Cas. 93 163, 169 
 Rogstad v., 31 Minn. 208, 14 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 648 224 
 
 St. P. & D. R. R., Flemming v., 
 
 27 Minn. Ill 344 
 
 Johnson v., SI Minn. 283, 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 467 156, 166 
 
 Walsh v., 27 Minn. 367, 2 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 114 344 
 
 Gradin v., 30 Minn. 217, 11 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 644 209 
 
 Hatfield v., 33 Minn. 130, 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 292 424 
 
 Vt. P. & P. R. R., LeClair v., 20 
 
 Minn. 9 382 
 
 St. L. & O. Ry., Lett v., 11 Ont. 
 
 Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 165 486, 490 
 
 St. P. C. Ry., Smith v., 16 Minn. 
 
 1, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 310 213, 274, 439 
 
 St. P. Water Co. v. Ware, 16 
 
 Wall. 566 127 
 
 St. H. Ry. & Canal Co., Manley 
 
 v., 2 H. & N. 840 149 
 
 St. P. & S. C. R. R., Clark v., 28 
 
 Minn. 128, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 240 345 
 
 Collins v., 30 Minn. 31, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 150 368 
 St. P. & C. R. R., Jacobus v., 20 
 
 Minn. 125 207, 286, 501 
 
 St. Lonis, Barry v., 17 Mo. 121 122 
 St. Louis R. R., Liddy v., 40 Mo. 
 
 506 54 
 
 Maschek v., 71 Mo. 276, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38 
 
 35, 74, 112 
 St. J. & H. R. R., Smith v., 55 
 
 Mo. 556 482 
 
 St. L., V. & T. H. R. R. v. Bell, 
 
 81 111. 76 186 
 
 Suggs, T. & St. L. R. R. v., 62 
 Tex. 323, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 475 238, 275, 440 
 Sullivan v. P. & R. R. R., 30 
 Penna. St. 234 
 
 250, 274, 290, 439 
 C. & A. R. R. v., 63 111. 293 314 
 v. L. Bridge Co., 9 Hush 81 47 
 Summerhays v. K. P. Ry., 2 Colo. 
 
 484 367 
 
 Sutherland v. G. W. Ry., 7 Up. 
 
 Can. (C. P.) 409 502 
 
 C. & P. R. R. v., 19 Ohio St. 
 
 151 74 
 Sutton v. N. Y C. R. R., 66 N. 
 
 Y. 243 177, 178 
 
 I. C. R. R. v., 42 111. 438 418 
 Summers v. C. C. R. R-, 34 La. 
 
 An. 139 285 
 
 Swainson v. N. E. Ry., 3 Ex. D. 
 
 341 372 
 
 Swayne, C. P. Ry. v., 13 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 41 440 
 
 Swansey, Bosworth v., 10 Mete. 
 
 363 65 
 
 Swart wont, Tracv v., 10 Pet. 81 471 
 Sweeny v. C. P. R. R., 87 Cal. 15, 
 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 151 343, 344 
 
 C. & N. W. Ry. v., 52 111. 
 
 330 60, 173
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 XC1X 
 
 Sweeny v. B. & A. R. R., 128 Mass. 
 5, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 138 180 
 
 v. B. & J. E. Co., 101 N. Y. 
 520, 524 343 
 
 Sweenev v. M. & St. L. Ry., 33 
 Minn. 153, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 302 374 
 
 v. O. C. & N. R. R., 10 Allen 
 (Mass.) 368 148, 163 
 
 Sweigert v. H. & St. J. R. R., 75 
 Mo. 475, 9 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 322 263, 436 
 
 S. W. Ry., Marfell v., 8 C B. N. 
 
 S. 525, 98 E. C. L. 200, 225 
 Phillips v., 4 Q.' B. D. 403, 5 
 Id. 85, 5 C. P. D. 280 
 
 470, 473, 474 
 Warburton v., L. R. 2 Ex. 
 30 222, 372 
 
 S. W. R. R. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 
 
 15, 62 
 v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252, 67 
 
 Id. 306 188,210,265,288,443 
 v. Hankerson, 61 Ga. 114 74 
 
 Singleton v., 70 Ga. 464, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 226 133 
 
 Johnson v., 60 Ga. 667 190 
 
 Swett, C & N. W. Ry. v., 45 111. 
 
 197 482 
 
 Swift, J. R. R. v., 26 Ind. 459 265 
 Sykes, C, B & Q. R. R v., 96 111. 
 162, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 254 287, 288 
 
 v. Packer, 99 Penna. St. 
 
 465 344 
 
 v. N. E. Ry., 32 L. T. N. S. 
 199 489 
 
 S. Y. Ry.. Binks v., 3 B. & S. 244, 
 
 113 E. C. L. 183 
 
 Hardcastle v., 4 H. & K 67 183 
 Sympkins, H. & T. C. Ry. v., 54 
 Tex. 615, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 1 1 196 
 
 S. & S. Ry., Hole v., 6H.&N. 
 
 488 126 
 
 S. & S. R. R., Lincoln v., 23 
 
 Wend. 425 29 
 
 S. & R. R. R-, Costello v., 65 
 
 Barb. 92 240 
 
 S. & U. R. R., Coon v., 5 N. Y. 
 
 492 323, 356, 368 
 
 S. & A. R. R., Baughman v., 92 
 
 Penna. St. 335 156, 172 
 
 Gilliam v., 70 Ala. 268, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 138 115 
 
 8. & N. A. R. R. v. McLendon, 
 
 63 Ala. 266 474 
 
 S. & N. A. R. R. v. Schaufler, 75 
 Ala. 136, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Las. 405 265, 288 
 
 Tyson v., 61 Ala. 554 314, ooO 
 S. & M. R. R. v. Shearer, 58 Ala. 
 
 672 166 
 
 S. & P. R. R. v. Strong, 61 Cal. 
 326, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 273 153 
 
 S. & R. R. R., Dun v., 78 Va. 645, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. It. Cas. 
 363 284 
 
 T., A. A. & G. T. Ry., Veits v., 
 55 Mich. 120, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 11 338, 346 
 Taber v. D., H. & L. Ry., 71 N. 
 
 Y. 489 262 
 
 Taft, M. & O. R. R. v., 28 Mich. 
 
 289 314 
 
 Talbot, Tuller v., 23 111. 357 233 
 
 Tanner v. L. & N. R. R., 60 Ala. 
 
 621 233, 416 
 
 Tarrant v. Webb 18 C. B. 797, 
 
 86 E. C. L. 314, 321 
 
 Tarry v. Ashton, 1 Q. B. D. 314 
 
 127, 148 
 Tavleur, Fletcher v., 17 C. B. 
 
 21, 84 E C. L. 460 
 
 Taylor, Briggs v., 28 Vt. 180 8, 446 
 Charles v., 3 C. P. D. 492 356 
 C. & K W. Ry. v., 69 01. 
 
 461 319 
 
 v. G. N. Ry., L. R. 1 C. P. 
 
 385 39, 140 
 
 Hurst v., 14 Q. B. D. 918 149 
 Hadley v., L. R. 1 C, P. 53 ]48 
 v. G. T. Ry., 48 N. H. 229, 
 
 304 233, 418, 472 
 
 v. Ry., 48 N. H. 304 246 
 
 P. S. Ry. v., 104 Penna. St. 
 
 306 12, 24, 152, 154, 156, 471 
 v. Penna. Co , 78 Ky. 348 409 
 T. A. R. R., Isaacs v., 47 N. Y. 
 
 122 112, 114 
 
 Schultz v., 89 N. Y. 242, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 579 1(19, 189, 412 
 
 T., C. S. & D. Ry., Day v., 42 
 Mich. 523, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 126 346, 356 
 
 Tebbutt v. B. & E. Ry., L. R. 6 
 
 Q. B. 73 _ 217,256 
 
 Ted castle, Spaight v., 6 A pp. Cas. 
 
 217 81 
 
 Terry, C, C. & C. R. R. v., 8 Ohio 
 
 St. 570 75, 86 
 
 I. & G. N. R. R. v., 62 Tex. 
 380, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 323 263, 467 
 
 v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338 257
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Tennenbroock v. S. P. C. R. K., 
 59 ( al.269, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 !;. K. Cas. 8 190, 192 
 
 T. F. I. M. Co., Pantzar v., 99 N. 
 
 Y. 368 320, 329, 330 
 
 T. G It. P., Maleck v., 57 Mo. 18 114 
 Thaver v. St. L., A. & T. H. R. 
 
 R., 22 Ind. 26 44, 54, 323 
 
 The Assessors, Van Allen v., 3 
 
 Wall. 573 413 
 
 The Bernina, 11 P. D. 31 81, 86 
 
 The Thetis, L. R. 2 Ad. & E. 
 
 365 106 
 
 The Mayor, Pack v., 3 Comst. 
 
 489 481 
 
 The Milan, 1 Lush. 388, 403 84 
 
 The N. Dock Co., Wilson v., L. 
 
 R. 1 Ex. 177 460, 469 
 
 The Queen, McFarlane v., 7 Can. 
 
 S. C. 216 413 
 
 v. McLeod, 8 Can. S. C. 1, 
 16 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 301 413 
 
 Theobald, P., C. & St. L. R. R. 
 
 v., 51 Ind. 246 416 
 
 Third Ave. R. R., Hamilton v., 
 
 53 N. Y. 25 471 
 
 Thirst, Blake v., 2 H. & C. 20 
 
 123, 127 
 Thomas, K. C. R. R. v., 79 Ky. 
 160, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 79 47, 246, 248, 275, 286 
 G. R. R. v., 68 Ga. 744 351 
 
 v. Rhvmney Ry., L. R. 6 Q. 
 
 B. 266 * 138 
 
 M. & C. R. R. v., 51 Miss. 
 
 637 374, 375 
 
 M. & O. R. R. v., 42 Ala. 
 
 672 306 
 
 v. W. V. T. Co., 100 Mass. 
 
 156 380 
 
 v. W. J. Ry., 101 U. S. 71 133 
 v. D., L. & W. R. R., 19 
 Blatchf. 533 166 
 
 Thirteenth & Fifteenth Sts. Ry. 
 Co. v. Boudrou, 92 Penna. 
 St. 480, 8 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna. ) 244 
 
 47, 48, 57, 290, 495 
 Thompson, King v., 87 Penna. St. 
 
 365 481 
 
 Drymala v., 26 Minn. 40 
 
 305, 329, 330 
 v. B., H. & H. Ry., 5 I. C. L. 
 
 517 262 
 
 v. C. R. R., 54 Ga. 509 60 
 
 v. N. E. Ry., 2 B. & S. 106, 
 
 110 E. C. L. 17, 54, 200 
 
 P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 56 
 111. 138 233, 240, 248 
 
 Thompson v. C, M. & St. P. 
 
 Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 239 368 
 v. C, L. & C. R. R., 54 Ind. 
 
 197 154 
 
 Thomason, Union Trust Co. v., 25 
 
 Kans. 1, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 589 307, 383 
 
 Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115, 
 
 65 E. C. L. 78, 85, 86 
 
 Thorpe v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 76 N. Y. 402 136, 243 
 
 Thul, A., T. & S. F. R. R. v., 29 
 
 Kans. 466, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 378 424 
 
 Thurber v. H.,B. M. & F. R. R., 
 
 60 JSL Y. 326 69 
 
 Thurston v. Martin, 1 Mason 
 
 197 470 
 
 T. H. & I. R. R., Abend v., Ill 
 
 111. 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 614 365, 368, 374 
 v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 18 Am. 
 
 & Ensr. R. R. Cas. 234 28, 266 
 Everhart v., 78 Ind. 292, 4 
 
 Am. <fe Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 599 212, 370, 371 
 
 v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 178 
 
 114, 233, 275 
 Robertson v., 78 Ind. 77, 8 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 175 367 
 
 Clark v., 73 Ind. 168, 6 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 84 159, 169 
 v. Graham, 95 Ind. 286, 12 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 277 191, 193 
 
 Stewart v., 103 Ind. 44, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 
 
 209 405 
 
 The Mayor, Ehrgott v., 96 N. Y. 
 
 264 473 
 
 Theobald v. Ry. Pass. A. Co., 10 
 
 Ex. 45 467 
 
 Tierney v. M. & St. L. Ry., 33 
 
 Minn. 311,21 Am &Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 545 330, 347, 369 
 Timlow v. P. & R. R. R., 99 
 
 Penna. St. 284 4 
 
 Timmon v. C. O. R. R., 6 Ohio 
 
 St. 105 376 
 
 Tindall, O. & M. R. R. v., 13 
 
 Ind. 366 367 
 
 Tinney v. B. & A. R. R., 62 
 
 Barb. 218 299 
 
 Titcomb v. F. R. R., 12 Allen 
 
 254 149 
 
 T. M. R. R. v. Whitmore, 58 
 
 Tex. 276, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 195 314. 330
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 ei 
 
 Tobin v. P. S. & P. R. R., 59 Me. 
 
 183 220, 253 
 
 Todd v. O. C. R. R., 3 Allen 18, 
 
 7 Id. 207 207, 284 
 
 Tollitt v. Sherstone, 5 M. & W. 
 
 283 412 
 
 Tolman v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R., 
 
 98 N. Y. 198 162, 175, 436 
 Tompkins v. Clay St. H. R. Co., 
 
 9 Cal. , 18 Am. & En ? . 
 
 R. R. Cas. 144 86, 394 
 Toomey, Penna. Co. v., 91 Penna. 
 
 St. 256 109, 115 
 
 v. L. B. & S. C. Rv.. 3 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 146, 91 E. C. L. 
 
 258 434 449 
 Totten v. P. R. R., 11 Fed.' Rep! 
 
 564 474 
 
 Topham, Blvth v., Cro. Jac. 158 183 
 Torpy v. G. T. Rv., 20 Up. Can. 
 
 (Q. B.) 416 211 
 
 Towanda Coal Co. v. Heeman, 86 
 
 Penna. St. 418 109, 115 
 
 Towboat Co., P. & R. R. R. v., 
 
 23 How. 209 65 
 
 Townlev v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 
 
 53 Wise. 626, 4 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 562 69, 179 
 Townsend, Stahl v., 37 Ala. 247 501 
 v. Walthen, 9 East 277 183 
 
 L. R. & F. S. R. R. v., 41 
 
 Ark. 382, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 619 346 
 
 Town of Haraden v. N. H. & N. 
 
 R. R., 27 Conn. 158 412 
 
 Toppins, E. T. V. & G. R. R. v., 
 
 10 Lea (Tenn.) 58, 11 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 222 305, 378 
 
 Toy, I. B. & W. R. R. v., 91 111.474 306 
 T., P. & W. Ry., Seeor v., 10 Fed. 
 
 Rep. 15 265, 283 
 
 v. Riley, 47 111. 514 74 
 
 Tracy v. Swartwont, 10 Pet 81 471 
 
 v. Wood, 3 Mason 132 7 
 
 Transfer Co. v. Kellv,36 0hio St. 
 
 86, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 335 86 
 
 Trask v. C. S. R. R., 63 Cal. 96, 
 
 1 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 192 305 
 
 Treat v. B. & L. R. R., 131 Mass. 
 
 371, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 423 281 
 
 Treadway v. S. C. & St. P. Ry., 
 
 40 Iowa 526 416 
 
 Transportation Co., Walker v., 
 
 3 Wall. 150 501 
 
 Travis v. L. & N. R. R., 9 Lea 
 
 (Tenn.) 231 416 
 
 Trigg, St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. v., 
 74 Mo. 147, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 345 
 
 25, 263, 454, 466 
 Trollenger v. E. T. V. & G. R. 
 
 R., 1 1 Tenn. 533 251 
 
 Troesch, C, C. & I. C. Ry. v., 68 
 
 111. 545 307, 434 
 
 Trotter, C, St. L. & N. O. R. R., 
 61 Miss. 417, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 159 259, 434 
 • C, St. L. & N. O. R. R. .., 60 
 
 Miss. 442 443 
 
 Trow v. V. C. Ry., 24 Vt. 4Sf 54 
 
 Troy Citizens' Gas Light Co., ; 
 
 Lee v., 98 N. Y. 115 436 
 
 Troutman v. P. & R. R. R., 11 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 455 166, 179 
 
 True, Packet Co. v., 88 111. 608 214 
 Truitt v. H. & St. J. R. R., 62 
 
 Mo. 527 34 
 
 T. R. R. v. Munger, 5 Denio 
 
 267 50 
 
 Truax v. E. R. R., 4 Lansing 198 216 
 Travellers' Ins. Co., Baylis v., 
 
 113 U. S. 316 454, 456 
 
 Tucker v. Chaplin, 2 C. & K. N. 
 
 P. 730, 61 E. C. L. 87 
 
 Tuff v. Warinan, 5 C. B. N. S. 
 
 573, 94 E. C. L. 47, 51, 54, 84 
 Tuller v. Talbot, 23 111. 357 233 
 
 Tunnev v. Midland Ry., L. R. 1 
 
 C. P. 291 210, 368 
 
 Turner v. N. C. R. R., 63 N. C. 
 
 5^2 65 
 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 74 Mo. 
 603, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 38 135, 169 
 
 Tuttle v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 42 
 
 Iowa 518 411, 481 
 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 48 Iowa 
 236 275, 439 
 
 Tully v. F. R. R., 134 Mass. 499, 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 682 169, 425, 429 
 
 T. V. Ry., Vaughan v., 5 H. & 
 
 N.685 145, 146 
 
 Giles v., 2 El. & Bl. 822, 75 
 E. C. L. 445 
 
 T. W. & W. R. R. v. Baddely, 54 
 
 111. 19 233, 263, 292 
 
 v. Beggs, 85 111. 80 
 
 188, 208, 209, 240 
 v. Fredericks, 71 111. 294 301 
 v. Grush, 67 111. 262 254 
 
 v. Brooks, 81 III. 245, 292 
 
 188, 208, 209 
 Gartland v., 67 111. 498 338 
 
 v. Maine, 67 111. 298 255
 
 Cll 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 T. W. & W. R. R. v. Ingraham, 77 
 
 111. 309 304, 307, 329, 346, 309 
 v. Asbury, 84 111. 429 301 
 
 v. Conroy, 68 111. 560 
 
 240, 303, 305 
 v. Moore, 77 111. 217 
 
 299, 306, 446 
 v. Durkin, 76 111. 395 356 
 
 v. Black, SS 111. 112 346, 376 
 v. Grabel, 88 111. 441 91 
 
 Hatcher v., 62 111. 477 135 
 
 v. Harmon, 47 111. 298 151 
 
 v. Branagan, 75 Ind. 490, 5 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 630 434, 436 
 
 Tweed, Insurance Co. v., 7 Wall. 
 
 44 11 
 
 Twoinley v. C. P., N. & E. R R, 
 
 69 N. Y. 158 62 
 
 Twycross v. Grant, 4 C. P. D. 40 398 
 Tvler v. N. Y. & N. E. R E., 137 
 Mass. 238, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 297 169 
 
 Tyrer, Dalyell v., El. Bl. & El. 
 890,' 96 E. C. L., 28 L. J. 
 Q. B. 25 103, 217 
 
 Tyson v. S. & N. A. E. E, 61 
 
 Ala. 554 314, 330 
 
 T. & P. Ey. v. Hardin, 62 Tex. 
 367, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 460 240 
 
 Hough v., 100 U. S. 213 
 
 300, 306, 329, 330, 369, 382 
 v. Charlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 
 Am. Si Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 350 309, 338, 342 
 
 v. Harrington, 62 Tex. 597, 
 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 571 315, 344 
 
 v. Kane, Tex. , 15 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 218 307 
 
 v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285, 21 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 384 205, 210 
 
 Williams v., 60 Tex. 205, 15 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 403 76 
 
 Hamilton v., 64 Tex. 251, 21 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 336 220 
 
 T. & B. E. E., Buffett v., 40 N. 
 
 Y. 168 136, 214, 242 
 
 Payne v., 83 N. Y. 572, 6 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 54 156 
 
 Payne v , 9 Hun (N. Y.) 526 422 
 T. & N. O. E. R., Eames v., 63 
 Tex. 600, 22 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 540 27 
 
 T. & W. Ey., Slattery v., 23 Ind. 
 
 81 306, 367 
 
 T. & W. E. R v. Goddard, 25 
 
 ln.1. 185 87, 157 
 
 T. & St. L. E. E. v. Suggs, 62 
 Tex. 323, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 E. R Cas. 475 238, 275, 440 
 Umback v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 83 
 Ind. 191, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 98 300, 346 
 
 Union Trans. Co., Levering v., 42 
 
 Mo. 88 502 
 
 Union Trust Co. v. Thomason, 25 
 Kans. 1, 8 Am. & Eng. E. 
 E. Cas. 589 307, 383 
 
 U. P. Ey. v. Adams, 33 Kans. 427, 
 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 376 169, 173 
 
 v. Hause, 1 Wyoming 27 122 
 Harris v., 13 Fed. Eep. 591, 
 
 4 McCrary 457 38 
 
 v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553 
 
 339, "350, 370 
 v. Milliken, 8 Kans. 647 ■ 313 
 Miller v., 17 Fed. Eep. 67, 
 
 12 Id. 600 307, 350, 382 
 
 O'Eorke v., Colo. , 18 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. R, Cas. 19 347 
 v. Hand, 7 Kans. 392 233 
 
 Hall v., 16 Fed Eep. 744 308 
 v. Fray, 31 Kans. 739, 15 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 158 378 
 
 Diehl v., 33 Kans. 422, 21 
 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 350 264 
 U. Ry., Ames v., 117 Mass. 541 392 
 Fleck v., 134 Mass. 480, 16 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 372 290 
 
 U. R E.^OTlaherty v., 45 Mo. 
 
 70 77 
 
 Eathbone v., 13 E. I. 709, 13 
 Am. & Eng. E E. Cas. 58 274 
 IT. S., Pawling v., 4 Cranch 121 454 
 U. S. Bank v. Smith, 11 Wheat on 
 
 179 454 
 
 Utica, Stone v., 17 N. Y. 104 123 
 
 U. & S. E. E., Holbrook v., 12 
 
 JST. Y. 236 284, 434, 443 
 
 U. & B. R. R., Salter v., 75 N. Y. 
 
 273 172 
 
 Valirius,St. L. & S. E. Ry. v., 56 
 
 Ind. 511 301,306,309,338 
 Valleley, Ry. v., 32 Ohio St. 345 
 
 26,280 
 Valtez v. O. & M. R. R., 85 111. 500 
 
 363, 364, 368 
 Vandiver, P. R. R. v., 36 Penna. 
 St. 298, 42 Id. 365 
 
 107,108, 109, 468,491,493
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 cm 
 
 Vanderbilt, Quimby v., 17 N. Y. 
 
 306 138 
 
 N. H. S. & T. Co. v., 16 
 
 Conn. 421 54 
 
 R. T. Co. v., 2 N. Y. 479 112 
 VanHorn, C. R. R. v., 38 N. J. L. 
 
 133 262, 266 
 
 v. B., C. R. & N. R. R., 59 
 
 Iowa 33, 7 Am. & Eug. R. 
 
 R. Cas. 591 426 
 
 Vaughan v. T. V. Ry., 5 H. & N. 
 
 685 145, 146 
 
 Van Allen v. The Assessors, 3 
 
 Wall. 573 413 
 
 Van Patten, C, B. & Q. R. R. v., 
 
 74 111. 91 60 
 
 Vanderbeck v. Hendry, 34 N. J. 
 
 L. 472 177 
 
 Varillat v. N. O. & C. R. R., 10 
 
 La. An. 88 471 
 
 Vars v. G. T. Ry., 23 Up. Can. 
 
 (C. P.) 143 152 
 
 Vawter v. M. P. R. R., 84 Mo. 
 
 679, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 176 409 
 
 Vandyne, P., C. & St. L. Ry. v., 
 
 57 Ind. 576 2S0 
 
 Van Steinburg, D. & M. R. R. v., 
 
 17 Mich. 99 425 
 
 V. C. R. R, Commonwealth v., 
 
 108 Mass. 7 216 
 
 v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. 230 
 
 130, 233, 240 
 
 Quimbv v., 23 Vt. 387 158 
 
 Nelson v., 26 Vt. 717 133, 141 
 
 V. C. Ry., Trow v., 24 Vt. 487 54 
 
 Veits v. T., A. A. & G. T. Ry., 
 
 55 Mich. 120, 18 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 11 338, 346 
 Venables v. Smith, 2 Q. B. D. 
 
 279 102 
 
 Verry v. B., C. R. & M. Ry., 47 
 
 Iowa 549 416 
 
 Wk, N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. v., 
 
 95 N. Y. 267, 17 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 609 211 
 
 Vickers, Wilt v., 8 Watts 227 390 
 v. A. & W. P. R. R., 64 Ga. 
 
 306, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 337 69 
 
 Vincent, Howland v., 10 Mete. 
 
 371 148 
 
 Vining, P., F. W. & C. R. R. v., 
 
 27 Ind 513 76 
 
 V. Iron Works, Conroy v., 62 
 
 Mo. :;■") 382 
 
 V. of N. Ry., Morgan v., 5 B. & 
 
 S. 570,117 E. C. L., L. R. 
 
 1 Q. B. 149 360, 368 
 
 Vogdes, Lofton v., 17 Ind. 105 88 
 
 Vosburgh v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 
 
 94 N. Y. 374 304 
 
 Vose v. L. & Y. Rv., 2 H. & N. 
 
 728 "220, 316, 356, 372 
 
 VonSchaick v. H. R. R. R., 43 
 
 N. Y. 527 283 
 
 V. Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. 
 
 529 416, 509 
 
 V. & M. R. R. v. Howe, 52 Miss. 
 
 202 241 
 
 Dowell v., 61 Miss. 519, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 42 
 
 318, 376 
 V. & C. R. R., Hand v., 32 Vt. 
 
 473 356 
 
 V. & T. R. R., Ferguson v., 13 
 
 Nev. 184 155 
 
 Wade v. Leroy, 20 How. 34 473 
 
 Wachter, P. R. R. v., 60 Md. 395, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 187 349, 368 
 
 Wakefield v. C. & P. R. R., 37 
 
 Vt. 330 161 
 
 Holmes v., 12 Allen 580 108 
 
 Waite v. N. E. Ry., El. Bl. & El. 
 
 729, 96 E. C. L. 84, 88, 94 
 
 Walden v. Finch, 70 Penna. St. 
 
 460 201 
 
 Waldele v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 R., 95 N. Y. 275, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 400 418 
 Wallace, v. Cannon, 38 Ga. 199 65 
 Martin v., 40 Ga. 52 66 
 
 Paterson i\, 1 Macq. H. L. 
 
 748 314 
 
 W. St. L. & P. Rv. v., 110 
 111.114, 19 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 359 60, 173 
 
 v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 74 
 Mo. 594 158, 318 
 
 Waller v. S. E. Ry., 2 H. & C. 
 
 102 356, 358, 363, 366 
 
 A. & F. R. R. v.. 48 Ala. 
 459 313 
 
 . H. & T. C. Ry*. v., 56 Tex. 
 331, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 431 74 
 
 Walling, G. P. Ry. v., 97 Penna. 
 St. 55. 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 20 290, 454 
 
 Walker v. B. & M. R. R., 128 
 Mass. 8, 1 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 141 306, 366 
 
 v. S. E. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 
 
 640 112 
 
 v. Smith, 1 Wash. C. C. 152 
 
 468, 469 
 v. Trans. Co., 3 Wall. 150 501 
 R. R. v., 11 Heisk. (Tenn.) 
 383 60
 
 civ 
 
 TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
 
 Walrath, C, C, C. & I. B. E. v., 
 38 Ohio St. 461, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 371 
 
 136, 240, 243, 276 
 Walthen, Townsend v., 9 East 
 
 •J77 183 
 
 Walter v. C, D. & M. Ey., 39 
 
 Iowa 33 69 
 
 Walsh v. C. M. & St. P. E. E., 
 
 42 Wise. 23 25, 466 
 
 v. O. E. & N. Co., 10 Oregon 
 
 250 308 
 
 v. Sayre, 52 How. Pr. 334 424 
 v.St. P.&D.E.E„27MInn. 
 367, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 114 344 
 
 Wamsntta Oil Co., Empire Trans. 
 
 Co. v., 63 Penna. St. 14 501 
 Wanless v. N. E. Ey., L. E. 6 Q. 
 
 B. 481 164 
 
 Ward, Barnes v., 9 C. B. 392, 67 
 
 E. C. L. 148 
 
 v. C. C. E. E, 19 Shand 
 (S. C.) 521, 16 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 356 274 
 
 v. McCauley, 4 T. E. 490 390 
 Senior v., 1 El. & El. 385, 
 
 102 E. C. L. 374 
 
 C. & N. W. E. E. v., 61 111, 
 130 345 
 
 Ware v. Gay, 11 Pick. 106 439 
 
 St. P. Water Co. v., 16 Wall. 
 566 127 
 
 Wardle v. N. O. C. E. E., 35 La. 
 An. 202, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 60 274 
 
 Wanamaker v. Burke, 17 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 225 373 
 
 Hunter v., 17 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 232 (Pa. 
 O C. E. ) 12 
 
 Warburton v. S. W. Ey., L. E, 2 
 
 Ex. 30 222, 372 
 
 Warman, Tuff v., 5 C. B. N. S. . 
 
 573, 94 E. C.L. 47,51,54,84 
 Warren v. F. E. E., 8 Allen 227 
 
 139, 213, 233, 246, 257, 287, 
 436, 502 
 Yerger v., 31 Penna. St. 319 
 
 386, 388 
 Warner, C. B. & Q. E. E. v., 108 
 111. 538, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 100 307, 378, 445 
 v. E. Ey., 39 N. Y. 468 
 
 298, 305 
 v. E. Ey., 44 N. Y. 465 434 
 
 Wasmer v. D., L. & W. E. E., 80 
 N. Y. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 122 48, 156 
 
 PAGR 
 
 Waters v. Wing, 59 Penna. St. 
 
 213 436 
 
 Waterhouse, Crofts v., 3 Bing. 
 
 319, 11 E. C. L. 447 
 
 Ansell v., 6 M. & S. 393 
 
 390, 391, 394 
 Waterbury v. N. Y. C. & H. E. 
 
 E. E., 17 Bed. Eep. 671 
 
 188, 208, 210, 287, 445 
 Watling v. Oastler, L. E. 6 Ex. 
 
 73 95 344 
 
 Watkins v. G. W. Ey., 37 L. T. 
 
 N. S. 193 259 
 
 L. & N. E. E. v., Ky. , 
 
 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 89 191 
 
 Watson v. Ambergate Ey., 15 
 
 Jur. 448 137 
 
 v. N. Ey., 24 Up. Can. (Q. 
 
 B.) 98 286 
 
 v. W., St. L. & P. Ey., 66 
 
 Iowa 164, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 114 224 
 
 v. H. & T. C. Ey., 58 Tex. 
 
 434, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 213 345, 346 
 
 W T arden v. O. C. E. E., 137 Mass. 
 
 204, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. -61 2 304, 306 
 
 W., A. & G. E. E. v. Brown, 17 
 
 Wall. 445 132, 133 
 
 Way v. I. C. E. E., 40 Iowa 341 373 
 Wagner, A.. T. & S. F. E. E. v., 
 
 33 Kans. 660, 21 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 637 307, 346 
 Walters v. C. E. I. & P, E. E., 
 
 41 Iowa 71 77, 195 
 
 Walton v. N. Y. C. S. C. Co., 139 
 
 Mass. 556, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 
 E. E. Cas. 600, note 105, 256 
 W T ashburn v. N. & C. E. E., 3 
 
 Head (Tenn.) 638 374 
 
 Washington v. B. & O. E. E., 17 
 
 W. Va. 190, 10 Am. & 
 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 749 6 
 
 W. B. Canal Co. v. Mulliner, 68 
 
 Penna. St. 357 146 
 
 W. C. & P. E. E., Johnson v., 70 
 
 Penna. St. 366 6, 18, 63, 264 
 v. McElwee, 67 Penna. St. 
 
 311 422 
 
 W. C. V. M. & G. S. E. E., 
 
 Scheffer v., 105 U. S. 249 
 
 11, 29 
 W. C. Ey., Ferguson v., 63 Wise. 
 
 145, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 285 166, 173, 444 
 
 Kelly v., Wise. , 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 633 302, 309
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 CV 
 
 Weams, L. C. Rv. v., 80 Kv. 420, 
 8 Am. & "Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 399 233 
 
 Webster, Boulter v., 13 W. R. 
 
 289 489, 493 
 
 v. H. R. R., 38 N. Y. 260 ' 86 
 Weber v. N. Y. C. R. R., 58 N. 
 
 Y. 459 163 
 
 A., T. & S. F. R. R. v., 33 
 Kans. 543, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 418 482 
 
 P. R. R. v., 76 Penna. St. 
 157 174, 436, 444 
 
 Weaver, M., K &T. R. R. v., 10 
 
 Kans. 456 470 
 
 Webb, A. & W. P. R. R. v., 61 
 
 Ga. 5S6 308 
 
 v. R. W. & O. R. R., 49 N. 
 
 Y. 420 13 
 
 C. & X. R. R. v., 12 Ohio 
 
 St. 475 335, 343, 367 
 
 Tarrant v. (25 L. J. N. S. 
 C. P. 263), 18 C. B. 797, 
 86 E. C. L. 314, 322 
 
 Hexamer v., 101 X. Y. 377 
 
 122, 125 
 Wedgwood v. C. & X. W. R. R., 
 44 Wise. 44, 41 Id. 478 
 
 300, 307 
 Wedge. Milligan v., 12 A. & E. 
 737, 40 E. C L. 
 
 102, 122, 123, 124 
 Weed v. P. R. R., 17 N. Y. 362 108 
 Weems v. Mathieson, 4 Macq. H. 
 
 L. 215 314 
 
 Weeks, Beck v., 34 Conn. 145 502 
 v. N. O. & C. R. R., 32 La. 
 
 An. 615 74 
 
 v. N. Y., X. H. & H. R. R., 
 72 X. Y. 50 281 
 
 Weger v. P. R. R., 55 Penna. St. 
 
 460 299, 323, 368 
 
 Weiand, Mann v., 4 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 6 S3, 407 
 
 Weiss v. P. R. R., 79 Penna. St. 
 
 387, 87 Id. 447 174, 444 
 
 Weiller, P. P. Ky. v., 17 Weekly 
 Xotes of Cases (Peuna.) 
 306 276, 440 
 
 Weir, F. & P. M. Ry. v., 37 
 
 Mich. Ill 208 
 
 v. Allegheny, 95 Penna. St. 
 413 471 
 
 Welfare v. L. & B. Ry., L. R. 4 
 
 Q. B. 693 258, 434, 442 
 
 Welch, 1. C. R. R. v., 52 111. 183 308 
 Welker v. N. C. R. R , 1 Weekly 
 Xotes of Cases (Penna.) 
 210 31 
 
 Weller v. Dunk, 4 F. & F. 298 148 
 v. L. B. & S. C. Ry , L. R. 9 
 
 C. P. 132 261, 262, 266, 267 
 Wells v. B. C. R. & X. R. R., 
 
 56 Iowa 520, 2 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas 243 302, 345 
 Parrott v., 15 Wall. 524 434 
 
 R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 
 66 111. 321 127 
 
 Welsch v. H. & St. J. R. R., 72 
 
 Mo. 551, 6 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 75 163 
 
 Welsh v. P., C. & St. L. R. R., 10 
 
 Ohio St. 75 501 
 
 Werner, P. R. R. v., 89 Penna. 
 
 St. 59 50, 436 
 
 Western R. R., Hegeman v., 13 
 
 X. Y. 9 237, 240, 246 
 
 Hayes v., 3 Cush. 270 356 
 
 Western Stage Co., Sales v., 4 
 
 Iowa 547 233 
 
 Weston v. X. Y. E. R. R., 73 X. 
 
 Y. 595 254 
 
 West Derby Local Board, Smith 
 
 v., 3 C. P. D. 423 148 
 
 Wendell v. X. Y. C. & H. R. R. 
 
 R., 91 X. Y. 420 73 
 
 Werle v., L. I. R. R., 98 X. Y. 
 
 650 282 
 
 Wetmore, L. M. R. R. v., 19 
 
 Ohio St. 110 115 
 
 Weldon. I. C. R. R. v., 52 111. 
 
 290 486, 493 
 
 West v. X. J. R. R., 3 Vroom 91 166 
 Whaalan v. M. R. & L. E. Rv., 
 
 8 Ohio St. 249 356, 368 
 
 Whalen v. St. L., K. C. & X. Ry., 
 
 60 Mo. 323 474 
 
 Wheaton v. X. B. & M R. R., 
 
 36 Cal. 593 233 
 
 Wheeler, Barter v., 49 X. H. 9 134 
 Rogers v., 43 X. Y. 598 134 
 
 Wheelock v. B. & A. R. R., 105 
 
 Mass. 203 257 
 
 Wheelwright v. B. & A. R. R., 
 
 135 Mass. 225, 16 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 315 260 
 
 Wheless, X. C. & St. L. R. R., 
 
 10 Lea (Tenn.) 741, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 633, 15 Id. 315 346, 367 
 
 Wheel ton v. Hardisty, 8 El. & 
 
 BI. 232, 92 E. C. L. 454 
 
 Whipple, C. & R. I. R. R., 22 
 
 111. 105 133, 141 
 
 W.P. P. Ry. v., 5 Weekly 
 
 Xotes of Cases (Penna.) 
 
 68 63, 282 
 
 White u. Boulton, Peake 113 232 
 
 v. France, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 31 »8 2 K)
 
 avi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 White v. F. R. It., 136 Mass. 321, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R K. ('as. 
 
 140 
 
 139, 
 
 Hammack v., 11 C. B. N. S. 
 
 588, 108 E. C. L. 35, 434 
 
 v. M.C. Ry., 6 1 Wise. 536, IS 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 
 213 276, 424 
 
 P. R. R. v., 88 Penna. St. 
 
 327 257, 259, 261. 262, 266, 269 
 White Moss Colliery Co., Rourke 
 
 v., 2 C. P. D. 205 
 
 102, 103, 122, 126, 342 
 Whitford v. P. R. R., 23 N. Y. 
 
 465 409 
 
 Whitfield v. S. E. Ry., 1 El. Bl. 
 
 &E1. 115, 96 E. C. L. 99, 107 
 Whitaker v. E. A. R. R., 51 N. 
 
 Y. 295 416 
 
 Whittaker v. M. & S. Ry., L. R. 
 
 5 C. P. 464 n. 261, 262 
 
 W. H. J. Rv., Birkett v., 4 H. & 
 
 N. 730 138 
 
 Whitney v. M. C. R. R., 69 Me. 
 
 208 152 
 
 Mowery v., 14 Wall. 434 471 
 Wkitmore, T. M. R. R. v., 58 
 
 Tex. 276, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 195 314, 330 
 
 Whitman v. W. & M. Ry., 58 
 
 Wise. 408, 12 Am. & Eng 
 
 R. R. Cas. 214 302,806, 367 
 Whittington, B. & O. R. R. v., 
 
 30 Grat. 805 374, 378 
 
 Whitton, C. & N. W. Ry. v., 13 
 
 Wall. 270 409 
 
 Whitfield, M. & C. R. R. v., 44 
 
 Miss. 466 257 
 
 Whitsett v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 
 
 Iowa , 22 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 336 377 
 
 Wiggett v. Fox, 1 1 Ex. 832 342, 356 
 AViggins Ferry Co., Morrisey v., 
 
 43 Mo. 880 54 
 
 Wightman. B. & O. R. R. v., 29 
 
 Grat. 481 491 
 
 Wigmore v. Jay, 5 Ex. 354 
 
 323, 382, 333 
 Wilkins v. Day, 12 Q. B. D. 110 490 
 Wilkinson v. Fairrie, 1 H. & C. 
 
 633 177 
 
 Wilds v. H. R. K, 24 N. Y. 230, 
 
 432 60, 436 
 
 v. H. R. R. R.. 29 N.Y. 315 
 
 146, 159 
 Wile, Howard Ex. Co. v., 64 
 
 Penna. St. 201 454 
 
 Wilkes. Iiott v., 3 B. & Aid. 304, 
 
 5 E C.L. 47, 183 
 
 Willan, Nicholson v., 5 East 507 498 
 
 Willard, Allen v., 57 Penna. St. 
 
 374 122, 434, 441 
 
 Willey, F. & P. M. Ry. v., 47 
 Mich. 88, 5 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 305 156 
 
 Willis v. L. I. R. R., 34 N.Y. 
 
 670 282, 284 
 
 v. O. Ry. & N. Co., 11 Oregon 
 257, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 539 323, 368 
 
 Wills v. L. & B. R. R., 129 Mass. 
 351, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 27 251, 291 
 
 Williams, Bremner v., 1 C. & P. 
 
 414, 11 E. C. L. 232 
 
 v. Clough, 3 H. & N. 258 
 
 300, 344 
 v. C. R. R., 43 Iowa 396 
 
 302, 303, 374, 376 
 Demy v., 5 Allen 1 454 
 
 v. G. W. Rv., L. R. 9 Ex.157 28, 41 
 v. Jones, 3 II. & C. 662 102, 104 
 v. T. & P. Ry., 60 Tex. 205, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Las 
 403 
 
 P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 74 
 Ind. 462, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 457 
 
 283, 240, 264, 420, 439 
 Williamson v. G. T. Ry., 17 Up. 
 
 Can. (C. P.) 615 
 Willie, II. & T. C. R. R. v., 53 
 
 Tex. 318 
 Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W. 115 
 C & A. R. R v., 63 111. 167 
 Kopitoff v., 1 Q. B. D. 377 
 v. Merrv, 1 Sc. & Div. 326, 
 
 331 ' 296, 320, 354, 383 
 
 v. N. P. R. R., 26 Minn. 278 
 
 15, 233, 436 
 Sleath v., 9 C. & P. 607, 38 
 
 E. C. L. 102 
 
 v. Cunningham, 3 Cal. 241 158 
 M. P. R. R. i-., 28 Kans. 639 160 
 v. The N. Dock Co., L. R. 1 
 
 Ex. 177 460, 469 
 
 v. D., S. P. & P. Ry., 7 Colo. 
 101, 15 Am. & Eng] R. R. 
 Cas. 192 
 v. M. &P. Rv.. 18 Ind. 226 
 Win, M. & W. R. R. v., 19 Ga. 
 
 440 
 Winn, M. & W. R. R. v., 26 Ga. 
 
 250 
 Winans, Y. & M. L. R. R. v., 17 
 
 How. 30 
 Winch v. B L. & C J. Ry., 5 De 
 G. & S. 562, 16 Jur. 1085 
 v, Conservators of the 
 Thames, L. R. 9 C P. 378 200 
 
 76 
 
 25 
 
 367 
 
 8 
 
 256 
 
 232 
 
 319 
 
 367 
 
 54 
 
 l r > 
 
 133 
 
 133
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 CV11 
 
 Wing, Waters v. 59 Penna. St. 
 
 213 436 
 
 Winterbottom D.Wright, 10 M. 
 
 & W. 109, 115 412 
 
 Winters v . H. & St. J. R. E., 39 
 
 Mo. 468 285 
 
 Willoughby v. C. & N. W. Ry., 
 
 37 Iowa 432 434 
 
 Wilt, P., G. & N. E. E. v., 4 
 
 Whart. 143 388 
 
 v. Vickers, 8 Watts 227 390 
 
 Wilton v. M. E. E., 107 Mass. 103, 
 
 125 Id. 130 209 
 
 Witherley v. Eegent's Canal Co., 
 
 12 C. B. N. S. 2, 104 E. C. 
 
 L. 52, 54, 88 
 
 Withers v. N. K. Ey., 3 H. & N. 
 
 969 29, 32 
 
 Witherbee, Burke v., 98 N.Y. 
 
 562 301 
 
 W. J. Ferry Co., Burton v., 114 
 
 U. S. 371 282 
 
 W. J. Ey., Thomas v., 101 U. S. 
 
 71 133 
 
 W.L. Waterworks Co., Matthews 
 
 v., 3 Camp. 403 120 
 
 W. M. E. E. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 
 
 266, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 206 15, 279 
 
 Abell v., 63 Md. 433, 21 
 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 
 503 208, 212, 372 
 
 W. N. C. E. E., Gudger v., 87 N. 
 
 C. 325 150 
 
 W., N. & E. E. E., Corliss v., N. 
 
 H., 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 208 406 
 
 Woburn v. B. & L. E. E., 109 
 
 Mass. 283 412 
 
 Wolf, E. & C. E. E. v., 59 Ind. 
 
 89 76 
 
 v. Studebaker, 65 Penna. St. 
 
 459 460 
 
 Wolfe, L. & N. E. E. v., 80 Ky. 
 
 82, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 
 Cas. 625 254 
 
 Wolsey v. L. S. & M. S. E. E., 33 
 
 Ohio St. 227 374, 378 
 
 Wombwell, Eyder v., L. E. 4 Ex. 
 
 32, 40 450, 452 
 
 Wood, Brotherton v., 3 Brod. & 
 
 B. 54. 7 E. C. L. 390, 394 
 
 Cotton v., 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 
 
 98 E. C. L. 6, 112, 434 
 
 t;. D.C.S. Ey., 52 Mick 402, 
 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 
 
 129 115 
 
 v. L. S. & M. S Ry., 49 Mich. 
 
 370, 8 Am. A "Eng. R. E. 
 
 Cas. 478 263 
 
 Wood, Tracy v., 3 Mason 132 7 
 
 Woodger v. G. W. Ey., L. E. 2 
 
 C. P. 31S 462 
 Woodbridge v. D., L. & W. E. E., 
 
 105 Penna. St. 460, 16 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 55 35, 196 
 
 Woodley v. Metn. D. Ey., 2 Ex. 
 
 D. 334 349, 373 
 Woodward, Stevens v., 6 Q. B. D. 
 
 318 102 
 
 Wooslev, C. & St. L. E. E. v., 85 
 
 111 370 127 
 
 Wonder v. B. & O. E. E., 32 Md. 
 
 411 301 
 
 Woodward, D., S. P. & P. Ey. v., 
 
 4 Colo. 1 431 
 
 v. M. S. & N. I. E. E., 10 
 
 Ohio St. 121 409 
 
 v. C. & N. W. Ey., 23 Wise. 
 
 400 490 
 
 Wood worth, Day v., 13 How. 371 471 
 Penna. Co. v., 26 Ohio St. 
 
 585 216 
 
 Woolf v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 373, 34 
 
 E. C. L. 36 
 Woolsey, Lee v., 16 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 337 319 
 
 Worth, Caswell v., 5 El. & Bl. 
 
 849, 85 E. C. L. 36 
 
 Worthington, B. & O. E. E. v., 
 
 21 Md. 275 233, 240 
 
 Holmes v., 2 F. & F. 533 300 
 Woodruff, A. & C. A. L. E. E. v., 
 
 63 Ga. 707 308 
 
 Worthen v. G. T. Ey., 125 Mass. 
 
 99 282 
 
 W. P. Ey. v. Mulhair, 6 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 508 434 
 
 v. Whipple, 5 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 68 63, 282 
 v. Gallagher, 16 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 413 68, 291 
 
 Colgan v., 4 Weekly Notes 
 
 of Cases (Penna.) 400 71 
 
 Neir v., 12 Mo. App. 35 481 
 
 Wray v. Evans, 80 Penna. St. 
 
 102 122 
 
 Wright v. L. & N. W. Ey., L. R. 
 10 Q. B. 29S, 1 Q. B. D. 
 252 223, 372 
 
 De Forrest v., 2 Mich. 368 122 
 v. Midland Ry., L. R. 8 Ex. 
 
 137 39, 140 
 
 P., C. & St. L. Ey. v., 80 Ind. 
 1S2, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 628 416, 436
 
 CV111 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 Wright v. N. Y. C R. E., 25 N. Y. 
 
 565 323, 356 
 
 Winter-bottom v., 10 M. & W. 
 
 109, 115 412 
 
 v. B. & M. R. R., 129 Mass. 
 440, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 121 169, 190 
 
 v. G. R. R., 34 Ga. 337 417 
 
 W. Ry. v. Elliott, 98 111. 481, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 651 305, 308, 345, 364 
 
 v. McDaniel, 1U7 U.S. 454 
 
 313, 470 
 W. R. R., Keegan v., 8 N. Y. 175 306 
 Nolton v., 15 N. Y. 444 216 
 
 v. Frederick, 71 111. 294 307 
 
 v. Henks, 91 111. 406 160 
 
 Butteriield v., 10 Allen 532 168 
 W. St. L. & P. Ry., Moore v., 84 
 Mo. 481, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 509 347 
 
 Patterson v., 54 Mich. 91, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 130 218, 416 
 
 v. Peyton, 106 111. 534 
 
 138, 217, 470 
 v. Rector, 104 111. 296, 9 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 264 
 
 109, 213, 263, 265 
 Strauss v., 17 Fed. Rep. 209 34 
 V.Wallace, 110 111. 114, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 359 60, 173 
 
 v. Shacklet, 105 111.364, 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 166 86, 283, 413 
 
 Watson v., 66 Iowa 164, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 114 224 
 
 W. T. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 
 
 129 438 
 
 W. T. & R. R., Higgins v., 46 N. 
 
 Y. 23 109 
 
 Wurst, Gramlich v., 86 Penna. St. 
 
 74 183, 196 
 
 W. U. T. Co. v. Eyster, 91 U. S. 
 
 495, note 471 
 
 Thomas v., 100 Mass. 156 380 
 Wyatt v. G. W. Ry., 6 B. & S. 
 709, 118 E. C. L., 34 L. J. 
 (Q. B.) 204 20,31,37,54,63 
 Wyld v. Pickford, 8 M. & W. 443 7 
 W'vlde v. N. R. R., 53 N. Y. 156 413 
 Wynn v. Allard, 5 W. & S. 524 47 
 Wyly, A. & W. P. R. R. v., 65 
 Ga. 120, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 262 60, 159 
 
 W. & A. R. R. v. Drysdale, 51 
 
 Ga. 644 474 
 
 v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465 510 
 
 W. & A. R. R., Galloway v., 57 
 
 Ga. 512 510 
 
 v. Strong, 52 Ga. 461 510 
 
 Hendricks v., 52 Ga. 467 60, 510 
 v. Atlanta, Ga. , 19 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 233 412 
 Plutchinson v., 53 Tenn. 634 
 
 43, 413 
 Baker v., 68 Ga. 699 307, 382 
 v. Jones, 65 Ga. 631, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 267 161 
 Mitchell v., 30 Ga. 22 263 
 
 v. King, 70 Ga. 261, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 255 447 
 W. & G. Rv. v. Gladmon, 15 
 
 Wall. 401 67, 68, 436 
 
 W, & J. R. R, ( Gruber v., 92 N. 
 C. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 438 43, 136, 275 
 
 W. & M. R. R., Zemp v., 9 Rich. 
 
 L. 84 . 284 
 
 Whitman v., 58 Wise. 40S, 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 214 302, 306, 367 
 
 Richardson v., 8 Rich. L. 
 120 192 
 
 W. & G. R. R., Lemont v., 1 
 Mackey (D. C.) 180, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 263 280 
 
 W. & R. R. R., Herring v., 10 
 
 Ired. 402 74, 192, 193 
 
 W. & St. P. R. R., Brown v., 27 
 
 Minn. 162 368 
 
 Hughes v., 27 Minn. 137 
 
 343, 344 
 Maher v., 31 Minn. 401, 13 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas- 
 572 28 
 
 W. & T. P. R. R. v. Griffin, 57 
 
 Penna. St. 417 135 
 
 W. & W. R. R., Parker v., 86 N. 
 C. 221, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 420 168 
 
 Manlv v., 74 N. G 455 192 
 
 Potter v., 92 K C. 541, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 328 258 
 
 Yarborough v. Bank of England, 
 
 16 East 6 99, 107 
 
 Yates, Assop v., 2 H. & N. 
 
 768 373 
 
 Yarnall v. St. L., K. C & N. R. 
 R., 75 Mo. 575, 10 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 726 190 
 
 Yeaton v. B. & L. R. R., 135 
 Mass. 418, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 253 346 
 
 Yeomans v. C. C. S. N. Co., 44 
 
 Cal. 71 216
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 C1X 
 
 Yerger v. Warren, 31 Penna. St. 
 
 339, 386 388 
 
 Y. N. & B. By., Hutchinson v., 
 
 5 Ex. 343 
 
 342, 351, 355, 357, 366 
 
 Marshall v., 11 C. B. 655, 
 
 73 E. C L. 206, 390, 392 
 
 Yohn, Bard v., 26 Penna. St. 482 102 
 Y^ork v. C. K. R., 3 Wall. 113 501 
 Youll v. S. C. & P. Ry , 56 Iowa 
 
 346, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 589 338, 345 
 
 Young, N. Y. & E. R. R v., 33 
 
 Penna. St. 175 146 
 
 v. D., G. H. & M. Ry, 
 
 Mich. ,19 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R R. Cas. 417 151 
 
 Yonge v. Kentiey, 28 Ga. Ill 275, 440 
 
 Yundt, P., C. & St. L. R. R. v., 
 
 78 Ind. 373, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 502 164, 165 
 
 Y. & M. L. R. R. v. Winans, 17 
 
 How. 30 133 
 
 Zebe, P. R. R. v., 33 Penna. St. 
 
 318, 37 Id. 420 
 250, 251, 259, 270, 272, 
 
 468, 492, 493 
 Zeigler v. D. & N. R- R , 52 Conn. 
 
 543,23 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 
 Cas. 400 222 
 
 Zell v. Arnold, 2 Pen. & W 292 390 
 Zemp v. W. & M. R. R., 9 Rich. 
 
 L. 84 284 
 
 Zimmerman v. H. & St. J. R. R., 
 
 7 1 Mo. 476, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 
 R. R. Cas. 191 55, 75
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 •ME GENERAL NATURE OF THE RAILWAY'S LIABILITY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 I. Negligence the test of liability. 
 II. The liability as affected by the quasi public character of railways. 
 
 III. Negligence defiued. 
 
 IV. Distinctions in degrees of negligence. 
 V. Proximate and remote cause. 
 
 VI. The liability for injuries caused by an act of God. 
 VII. The liability for injuries caused by an act of the public enemy. 
 VIII. The liability for injuries caused by inevitable accident. 
 
 IX. The liability for injuries caused solely by the act of the injured 
 person. 
 X. The liability for omissions and acts of commission by agents and 
 servants. 
 XI. The liability for the negligent acts of those who are not agents or 
 servants. 
 XII. The non-performance of a duty imposed by statutes or municipal 
 ordinances. 
 XIII. Ultra vires. 
 
 I. NEGLIGENCE THE TEST OF LIABILITY. 
 
 Negligence upon the part of the railway is the test of its liability. 
 
 1. It is obvious that the relation between the railway 
 and any person who may happen to be injured in the 
 course of that railway's operations must be either con- 
 tractual, or non-contractual. Of course, if there be a 
 legally enforceable contract between the railway and an 
 individual, the terms of that contract must, so far as 
 they extend, determine the liability of the railway for
 
 Z NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 personal injuries to that individual. But the contract, 
 although full and complete in other respects, may not 
 contain any express stipulation as to the nature and 
 extent of that liability, or, if there be such a stipula- 
 tion, it may be of such a character that it is against the 
 policy of the law to recognize and enforce it. In either 
 of these contingencies the liability of the railway must 
 be rested upon the implied contract between the parties, 
 or, in other words, upon the duty raised by the law and 
 founded upon the relation of the parties. There may 
 also be, where there is a contractual relation between 
 the railway and the injured person, in addition to the 
 obligation created by the contract, a duty raised by the 
 law. If the relation between the railway and the in- 
 jured person be not founded upon contract, the liability 
 of the railway must solely depend upon the nature and 
 extent of the duty imposed by law. 
 
 2. In section 140 the persons who may possibly be 
 injured in the course of railway operations are classified, 
 and it is shown that the liability of the railway to 
 the individuals of each class is primarily dependent 
 upon the fact of the railway's negligence, yet, as will 
 be shown in other chapters of this book, that duty 
 upon the part of the railway, whose non-performance 
 is the essential element of its negligence, is not fixed 
 and unvarying, but is dependent on the relation be- 
 tween the individual injured and the railway, and may 
 be affected by the mental or physical incapacity of that 
 individual, and in some cases, also, by the circum- 
 stances under which the injury is inflicted. Thus the 
 railway does not owe a like duty to its passengers, to its 
 servants, to persons who are rightfully upon public 
 highways which adjoin or cross its line, to persons who 
 come upon its line or premises as mere licensees, and to 
 persons who trespass upon its line or premises ; nor
 
 THE RAILWAY S GENERAL DUTY. 3 
 
 does the railway in all cases owe a like duty to adults 
 and to infants, nor to persons of average physical and 
 mental capacity, and to those who are of less than 
 average capacity, and whose incapacity has been made 
 known to the railway's agents or servants. So, also, 
 whatever be the relation which a j)erson may hold to 
 the railway, the railway may temporarily ow r e to him a 
 higher degree of duty if its agents or servants have, in 
 the exercise of their delegated authority, either by words 
 or by acts, led him to rely on the performance by the 
 railway of that higher degree of duty. For the pur- 
 poses of this introductory chapter, it is enough to say 
 that the general duty of the railway to all who are 
 brought into contact with the operation of its line re- 
 quires it in the original construction and subsequent 
 maintenance in repair of its station approaches, build- 
 ings, and platforms, and of the embankments, bridges, 
 cuttings, tunnels, levels, road-bed, rails, and switches 
 which constitute its line, and of the engines and cars 
 which it employs in the conduct of its business, to use 
 good and sufficient material, to engage skilled engineers 
 and contractors, and to follow correct methods of con- 
 struction ; from time to time to adopt and put into oper- 
 ation such appliances and methods of operation as, 
 having been tested and found to materially contribute 
 to the safety of railway operations, are in j3ractical use, 
 and can, in fact, be adopted by the railway ; to test its 
 machinery and appliances before they are put into use ; 
 from time to time to inspect its line, buildings, ma- 
 chinery, and appliances in order to guard against de- 
 terioration by wear and tear and by lapse of time ; to 
 make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations for 
 the safety of all persons who shall be brought into 
 contact with the operations of its line; to employ a 
 sufficient number of servants ; to select those servants
 
 4 THE QUASI PUBLIC CHARACTER OF RAILWAYS. 
 
 carefully; to make and enforce regulations for their 
 guidance ; and to use in the operation of its line every 
 reasonable precaution for the safe conduct of its busi- 
 ness; and a failure of duty in any one of these respects 
 will render the railway liable for such injuries as might 
 have been avoided by the performance of the particular 
 duty. 
 
 II. THE LIABILITY AS AFFECTED BY THE QUASI PUBLIC 
 CHARACTER OF RAILWAYS. 
 
 The liability of railways for the results of their negligence is neither 
 increased nor diminished by their quasi public character. 
 
 3. While it is true that railway corporations, although 
 created by the investment of j>rivate, and not public, 
 capital, are, as grantees of public franchises, subject to 
 governmental regulation and control, so far as they are 
 not protected by the terms of their charters, 1 yet, inas- 
 much as they are primarily organized for jmrposes of 
 private gain, they are private corporations, 2 and their 
 obligation to indemnify those whom they may injure by 
 the exercise of their franchises is neither increased nor 
 diminished by their quasi public character. It is true 
 that Bradley, J., has said 3 that " the business of the 
 common carrier in this country, at least, is emphatically 
 a branch of the public service, and the conditions on 
 which that public service shall be performed by private 
 enterprise are not yet definitely settled ;" but the sug- 
 gestion therein conveyed of a future ascertainment of 
 
 1 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 130 ; C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Iowa. Id. 161 ; G. T. 
 Ry. v. Stevens, 95 Id. 655 : Barton v. Barbour, 104 Id. 135; Miltenberger v. 
 Lopansport Ry., 10G Id. 312; Foster v. Fowler, 60 Penna. St. 27. 
 
 *Timlow v. P. & R. R. R., 99 Penna. St. 284; P. & L E. R. R. v. Bruce, 
 102 Id. 23 ; Pierce v The ( lommonwealth, 14 Weekly Notes of Cases 97 ; Pres- 
 byterian Society v. A. & R. R. B., 3 Hill 567 
 
 3 G. T. Ry. v. Stevens. 95 U. 8. 660.
 
 NEGLIGENCE DEFINED. 5 
 
 the essential conditions of contracts of carriage bv rail- 
 way must, in the light of precedent and principle, be 
 construed as an intimation of prospective legislation 
 rather than as an authoritative declaration of existing 
 law, or even as a foreshadowing of a. judicial develop- 
 ment of old principles in new directions, for when a 
 railway has been chartered to construct a line and 
 thereon to transport passengers and goods for hire, its 
 franchise is the capacity thereby conferred of transact- 
 ing the business of a common carrier subject only to 
 such limitations as its charter prescribes, and to such 
 regulations as the State may, in the exercise of its police 
 power, lawfully impose upon individuals doing the like 
 business. Thus much was conceded by Waite, C. J., 1 
 when he said : " This company, in the transaction of its 
 business, has the same rights, and is subject to the same 
 control as private individuals under the same circum- 
 stances." Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that 
 in certain jurisdictions the law, from considerations of 
 public policy, denies to railways the privilege of con- 
 tracting for exemption from the results of their negli- 
 gence. 
 
 III. NEGLIGENCE DEFINED. 
 
 Actionable negligence is a non-performance of duty causing injury to 
 the person to whom the duty is owing. 
 
 4. The word "negligence" is so denned by lexicog- 
 raphers as to convey only the idea of a careless or 
 thoughtless omission to act, but that negligence which 
 is the subject of an action at law includes acts of com- 
 mission and of omission, and comprehends equally that 
 heedlessness which does not consider the possible results 
 of an act, that rashness which cares not whether or not 
 
 1 C. B. & Q. K. R. v. Iowa. 94 U. S. 161.
 
 O NEGLIGENCE DEFINED. 
 
 wrong be done by an act, and that wilful malice which 
 intends the doing of wrong, and the distinction between 
 a careless non-performance of duty and the wilful 
 doing of wrong, in the characterization of any par- 
 ticular act, when done by an agent or servant of the 
 railway is only material in determining the responsi- 
 bility of the railway therefor. 
 
 5. Alderson, B., 1 has defined negligence as "the 
 omission to do something which a reasonable man, 
 guided by those principles which ordinarily regulate 
 the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing some- 
 thing which a prudent and reasonable man would not 
 do." Paxson, J., 2 , has with greater brevity defined 
 negligence as " the absence of care according to the cir- 
 cumstances," and Willes, J., 3 has pertinently said : 
 " Confusion has arisen from regarding negligence as a 
 positive instead of a negative word. It is really the 
 absence of such care as it was the duty of the defendant 
 to use." 4 
 
 6. Yet it cannot be said that any one of tl^iese defi- 
 nitions is perfectly satisfactory, for they all fail to ade- 
 quately express the three essential elements of actionable 
 negligence, that is, first, the existence of a duty owing 
 by the defendant to the plaintiff or to the person whom 
 that plaintiff represents; second, a non-performance 
 of that duty by an act of commission or omission on 
 the part of the defendant; and third, an injury to the 
 
 1 Blyth >. Birmingham Water Works Co., 11 Ex. 781. 
 
 2 P. W. & B. R. R. v. Stinger, 78 Penna. St. 225. 
 
 3 Grill v. Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 C. P. G12. 
 
 4 Similar definitions are given in P>ridges v. N. L. Ry ., L. R. 7 H. L. 232; 
 Smith v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 102 ; Johnson v. W. C. & P. R. R-, 70 
 Penna. St. 366 ; Kay v. P. R. R., 65 Id. 273 ; Turnpike Co. v. P. & T. R. R., 
 
 54 Id. 351 ; Fritsch v. Allegheny, 91 Id. 226 ; Jamison v. S. J. & S. C. R. R., 
 
 55 Cal. 593, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 350; B. & P. R. R. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 
 439 ; Washington v. B. & O. R. R., 17 W. Va. 190, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 749.
 
 NEGLIGENCE DEFINED. 
 
 plaintiff or the person whom he represents directly re- 
 sulting from the defendant's non-performance of that 
 duty. There must be both the existence of the duty 
 and the breach of that duty, for otherwise the defendant 
 has done no wrong, for as Erie, C. J., said l there can be 
 no satisfactory proof of negligence as against a defend- 
 ant, " unless it be shown that there existed some duty 
 owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that there 
 has been a breach of that duty." So far as regards the 
 right of action, it is immaterial whether the non-per- 
 formance of duty upon the part of the defendant has 
 been wilful or careless, but the form of the remedy and 
 the quantum of damages may be materially affected by 
 the wilful or careless character of the defendant's act, 
 and where the injury is done by the act of a servant, 
 the careless or willful character of the act may be ma- 
 terial in determining the responsibility of the master. 
 There must be actual injury, for otherwise the plaintiff 
 has suffered only damnum absque injuria. 
 
 7. Brett, M. R, 2 defines actionable negligence as 
 " the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill toward 
 a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of ob- 
 serving ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the 
 plaintiff, without contributory negligence on his part, 
 has suffered injury to his person or property." Of all 
 the judicial definitions of negligence, this seems to me 
 to be the most complete, but I venture to suggest that 
 actionable negligence may be denned, with sufficient 
 accuracy for all practical purposes, to be a non -per- 
 formance of duty causing injury to the person to whom 
 the duty is owing. 
 
 1 Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 98 E. C. L. 
 1 Ileaven v. Pender, 11 Q. B. D. 507.
 
 O DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 IV. DISTINCTIONS IN DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Distinctions in degrees of negligence are noiv generally regarded as 
 
 in t important. 
 
 8. The earlier cases, 1 following the civil law, attempted 
 to classify negligence under the three categories of 
 " slight," " ordinary," and " gross," but, bearing in 
 mind the definitions quoted in the preceding paragraph, 
 distinctions between the degrees of negligence become 
 of little or of no importance, for the want of that care 
 w 7 hich the circumstances of the particular case make 
 necessary is the foundation of a legal liability, whether 
 it be in itself slight, ordinary, or gross negligence. This 
 view has been sanctioned by high authority. Lord 
 Denraan 2 has said : " it may well be doubted whether 
 between gross negligence and negligence merely any 
 intelligible distinction exists." Lord Cranworth 3 has 
 said that he "could see no difference between negligence 
 and gross negligence ; that it was the same thing, with 
 the addition of a vituperative epithet." In the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, Curtis, J., 4 has character- 
 ized as impracticable any distinction between degrees 
 of negligence ; and Davis, J., 5 has said : '* gross negli- 
 gence is a relative term ; after all, it means the absence 
 of care that was necessary under the circumstances." 
 The same view has been taken in other cases. 6 
 
 9. But Bradley, J., 7 has said : " in each case the 
 
 1 Duff v. Budd, 3 Brod. & B. 177, 7 E. C. L. ; Wyld v. Pickford, 8 M. & W. 
 443; Owen v. Burnett, 4 Tyr 133; Smith v. Home, 8 Taunt. 144, 4 E. C L. ; 
 Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mason 132 ; Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479. 
 
 2 Hinton v, Dibbin, 2 Ad. & El. N. S. 661, 42 E. C. L. 
 
 3 Wilson v. Brett, 11 M. & W. 115. 
 
 4 Steamboal New World v. King, 16 How. 469. 
 
 5 M. & St. P. Ry. v. Arms, 91 U. H. 495. 
 
 6 Beal v. S. D. Ry., 3 H. & C. 341 ; Grill v. Iron Screw Collier Co., L. R. 1 
 C. P. 612; Briggs v. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180; Perkins v. N. Y. C. R. R., 24 N.Y. 
 196. 
 
 7 N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lockwood. 17 Wall. 357.
 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 9 
 
 negligence, whatever epithet we give it, is failure to 
 bestow the care and skill which the situation demands ; 
 and hence it is more strictly accurate, perhaps, to call 
 it simply ' negligence.' And this seems to be the ten- 
 dency of modern authorities. If they mean more than 
 this and seek to abolish the distinctions of degrees of 
 care, skill, and diligence required in the performance 
 of various duties, and the fulfillment of various con- 
 tracts, we think they go too far, since the requirement 
 of different degrees of care in different situations is too 
 firmly settled and fixed in the law to be ignored or 
 changed." 
 
 V. PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 
 
 Tlie negligence of the railway must be the proximate, and not the re- 
 mote cause of the injury to the plaintiff. 
 
 10. It is, however, not sufficient to define negligence 
 in abstract terms. It is necessary, also, to discriminate 
 between those causes of injury to individuals which do, 
 and those which do not, result from negligence on the 
 part of the railway, and to illustrate the distinction by 
 reference to adjudged cases. 
 
 11. The negligence of the railway must have been 
 the efficient cause of the injury, for as Gibson, C. J., 1 
 has said, the defendant " is answerable for the conse- 
 quences of negligence, and not for its abstract exist- 
 ence," and as Cairns, L. C., 2 has said, " the negligence 
 must in some way connect itself, or be connected by 
 evidence, with the accident. It must be * * * incuria 
 dans locum injuries" If its negligence be the efficient 
 cause of the injury, the railway must, as Nares, J., 3 
 
 1 Hart ?-. Allen, 2 Watts 116. 
 
 2 M. Ry. v. Jackson, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 198. 
 8 Scott v. Shepherd, 2 BL 892.
 
 10 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 
 
 said, with regard to the original thrower of that squib 
 which has played so important a part in the history of 
 the law, be " answerable for all the consequences " of 
 its negligence; but those consequences in a legal sense 
 are the proximate and not the remote consequences, 
 for as Lord Bacon 1 said, in explanation of the maxim 
 " causa proximo, non remota spectatur," "it were infinite 
 for the law to judge the causes of causes and their im- 
 pulsions one of another ; therefore it contenteth itself 
 with the immediate cause, and judgeth of acts by that 
 without looking to any further degree." 
 
 12. Of course, the soundness of the rule as thus stated 
 is generally conceded, but there is often great practical 
 difficulty in its application to the facts of particular 
 cases. It would, therefore, be desirable to obtain, if it 
 were possible, a test by which to determine whether or 
 not any specific act of negligence be the proximate 
 cause of the injury in any |)articular case. 
 
 13. Different tests have been suggested. In one 
 class of cases the suggested test is the existence of an 
 unbroken connection between the wrongful act or omis- 
 sion and the injury. The theory of this test is thus 
 explained by Strong, J., 2 "we do not say that even 
 the natural and probable consequences of a wrongful 
 act or omission are, in all cases, to be chargeable to the 
 misfeasance or nonfeasance. They are not, when there 
 is a sufficient and independent cause operating between 
 the wrong and the injury. In such a case the resort 
 of the sufferer must be to the originator of the inter- 
 mediate cause. But when there is no intermediate 
 efficient cause, the original wrong must be considered as 
 reaching to the effect and proximate to it. The inquiry 
 must, therefore, always be, whether there was any inter- 
 mediate cause disconnected from the primary fault and 
 
 1 Max. Eeg. 1. 2 M. & St. P. Ey. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 4fi9, 475.
 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 11 
 
 self-operating which produced the injury. Here lies 
 the difficulty. But the inquiry must be answered in 
 accordance with common understanding. In a suc- 
 cession of dependent events, an interval may always be 
 seen by an acute mind between a cause and its effect, 
 though it may be so imperceptible as to be overlooked 
 by a common mind. * * * In the nature of things, 
 there is in every transaction a succession of events 
 more or less dependent upon those preceding, and it is 
 the province of a jury to look at this succession of 
 events or facts and ascertain whether they are naturally 
 and probably connected with each other by a continu- 
 ous sequence or are dissevered by new and independent 
 agencies, and this must be determined in view of the 
 circumstances existing at the time." 1 
 
 14. Another suggested test is that the injury should 
 be such a consequence as, under the surrounding cir- 
 cumstances of the case, might and ought to have been fore- 
 seen by the wrongdoer as likely to follow from his act. 
 Bovill, C. J., 2 states it thus : " No doubt one who com- 
 mits a wrongful act is responsible for the ordinary con- 
 sequences which are likely to result therefrom ; but, 
 generally speaking, he is not liable for damage, which is 
 not the natural or ordinary consequence of such an act, 
 unless it be shown that he knows, or has reasonable 
 means of knowing, that consequences not usually re- 
 sulting from the act are, by reason of some existing 
 cause, likely to intervene so as to occasion damage to a 
 third person. Where there is no reason to expect it, 
 and no knowledge in the person doing the wrongful act 
 that such a state of things exists as to render the dam- 
 
 1 Substantially the same view is taken in Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44 ; 
 Scheffer v. W. C. V. M. & «-. S. R. R., 105 U. S. 249 ; Ins. Co. v. Seaver, 19 
 Wall. 531 ; Fawcett v. P. C. & St. L. Ry. 24 W. Va. 755. 
 
 * Sharp v. Powell, L. It., 7 C. P. 253.
 
 12 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 
 
 age probable, if injury does result to a third person, it 
 is generally considered that the wrongful act is not (lie 
 proximate cause of the injury so as to render the 
 wrongdoer liable to an action." In the same case 
 Grove, J., said : " The expression, the ' natural ' con- 
 sequence, which has been used in so many eases, and 
 which I myself have no doubt often used, by no means 
 conveys to the mind an adequate notion of what is 
 meant ; ' probable ' would, perhaps, be a better expres- 
 sion," and Keating, J., based his judgment for the 
 defendant on the fact that the damage in question was 
 not " one which the defendant could fairly be expected 
 to anticipate as likely to ensue from his act." 
 
 15. The same view was obviously present to the mind 
 of Bramwell, B., 1 when he said, " it would be mon- 
 strous to hold the defendants responsible because they 
 did not foresee and prevent an accident, the cause of 
 which was so obscure that it was not discovered until 
 many months after the accident had happened." 
 
 Paxson, J., 2 states the same view clearly and forci- 
 bly, thus, " a man's responsibility for his negligence, and 
 that of his servants, must end somewhere. There is a 
 possibility of carrying an admittedly correct principle 
 too far. It may be extended so as to reach the reductio 
 ad absurdum, so far as it applies to the practical business 
 of life. We think this difficulty may be avoided by ad- 
 hering to the principle * * * that, in determining what 
 is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must 
 be the natural and probable consequence of the negli- 
 gence — such a consequence as, under the surrounding cir- 
 cumstances of the case, might and ought to have been 
 foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his 
 act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa 
 
 1 Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., 11 Ex. 785. 
 1 Hoag v. L. S. & M. S R. R., 85 Penna. St. 293.
 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 13 
 
 proximo, non remota spectatur: it only affects its appli- 
 cation." 1 
 
 16. But, as is pointed out in the "judgments in Smith 
 v. L. & S. W. Ry., 2 it must be borne in mind in apply- 
 ing the last suggested test that a defendant, who does a 
 negligent act, ought to be held responsible for any 
 natural consequences of that act, although the particular 
 consequence which resulted from the act either was not 
 or could not have been anticipated by him. Neither 
 of the suggested tests is so precise and definite that its 
 application to the facts of any possible case will, at once 
 and beyond doubt, determine the liability of the railway 
 to the plaintiff, and in the end the correct solution of 
 the problem in any case is dependent upon the exercise 
 of a sound judgment by the judge and the jury ; for, it 
 is for the jury, as Paxson, J., 3 has said, "to ascertain 
 the relation of one fact to another, and how far there 
 is a continuation of the causation by which the result 
 is linked to the cause by an unbroken chain of events, 
 each one of which is the natural, foreseen, and necessary 
 result of such cause." 4 But it is for the court in this, 
 as in all other cases which go to the jury, to determine 
 in the first instance whether, assuming the truth of the 
 evidence, the jury can reasonably find a verdict for the 
 party upon whom, under the pleadings, the burden of 
 proof rests. 
 
 1 The last-mentioned test is adopted as the correct one in Greenland v. 
 Chaplin, 5 Ex. 243; Hoag v. L. 8. & M. S. R. R., 85 Penna. St. 293; P. S. 
 Ry. ?\ Taylor, 104 Id. 306 ; Hunter v. Wanaraaker, 17 Weekly Noteg of Cases 
 (Penna.) 232, 1 Penna. Sup. Ct. Digest 7. 
 
 2 L. R., 6 C. P. 14. 
 
 3 Hoag v. L. S. & M. S. R. R., 85 Penna. St. 294. 
 
 * Webb v. R. W. & O. R. R., 49 N. Y. 420 ; P. R. R. v. Hope, 80 Penna. St. 
 373 ; P. & N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lacey, 89 Id. 458 ; M. & S. P. Ry. v. Kellogg, 94 
 U. S. 469; L. E. R. R. v. McKeen, 90 Penna. St. 122; P. W. & P>. R. R. v. 
 Brannen, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 227 ; Billman v. I. C. & L. R. R., 
 76 Ind. 166; 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 41. 
 
 5 Hoag v. L. S. & M. S. R. R., 85 Penna. St. 294.
 
 14 INJURIES IN AVOIDING DANGER. 
 
 17. Where injuries are inflicted, in the course of rail- 
 way operations, upon the person of one who is himself 
 without fault, those injuries are generally so immediate 
 and all their effects so obviously connected, that there is 
 no reason to doubt that the damage is the proximate re- 
 sult of some particular act or omission on the part of the 
 railway, but when the question of proximate or remote 
 cause is raised, it turns either on the relation of the in- 
 juries, whatever they may be, to the particular act or 
 omission on the part of the railway, or on the connec- 
 tion between some subsequently developed injury to the 
 plaintiff and his original injury. 
 
 18. As illustrations of the first class there are the cases 
 of injuries suffered by one in attempting to escape from 
 a situation of apparent peril to life or limb in which he 
 has been placed by negligence on the part of the rail- 
 way, and the cases of injuries incurred in attempting to 
 obviate some more or less serious inconvenience, which 
 the railway's negligence or breach of contract has 
 brought upon one. As illustrations of the second 
 class, there are the cases of disabilities or maladies 
 supervening upon the immediately apparent injuries 
 inflicted by the railway's negligence. 
 
 Tfie railway is liable for injuries suffered by one in attempting to escape 
 from a situation of apparent peril to life or limb, in which he has 
 been placed by the negligence of the railway. 
 
 19. The leading case is Jones v. Boyce, 1 where the 
 plaintiff was a passenger by the defendant's coach ; a 
 rein having broken, and one of the leaders becoming 
 ungovernable, whilst the coach was passing a hill, the 
 plaintiff, apprehending the overturning of the coach, 
 which, however, was not overturned, jumped off, and in 
 
 1 1 Starkie 493, 2 E. C. L.
 
 INJURIES IN AVOIDING INCONVENIENCES. 15 
 
 so doing broke his leg, whereas if he had remained on 
 the coach he would not have been injured. Lord Ellen- 
 borough directed the jury that " to enable the plaintiff 
 to sustain the action, it is not necessary that he should 
 have been thrown off the coach ; it is sufficient if he 
 was placed by the misconduct of the defendant in such 
 a situation as obliged him to adopt the alternative of a 
 dangerous leap or to remain at certain peril. If that 
 position was occasioned by the default of the defendant, 
 the action may be supported. On the other hand, if 
 the plaintiff's act resulted from a rash apprehension of 
 danger which did not exist, and the injury which he 
 sustained is to be attributed to rashness and imprudence, 
 he is not entitled to recover. The question is whether 
 he was placed in such a situation as to render what he 
 did a prudent precaution for the purpose of self-preser- 
 vation." 1 
 
 The railway is liable for injuries incurred by one in attempting, by an 
 ad not obviously dangerous, to obviate a serious inconvenience to him, 
 caused by the negligence of the railway. 
 
 20. Thus, in Adams v. L. & Y. Rv., 2 the door of the 
 carriage in which the plaintiff was riding would not 
 remain shut while the train was in motion, but there 
 was room enough for the plaintiff to sit away from the 
 door, and the weather was good. The plaintiff, having 
 
 1 See also Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Erwin (Tenn.), 
 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 4(55; Caswell v. B & W. R. R., 98 Mass. 194; 
 E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Gnrley, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 46, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 568 ; G. R. R. v. Rhode-. 56 ( ra 645 ; C. R. R. v. Roach, 64 Id. 685, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R Cas. 79 ; P. B. & W. R. R. v. Rohrman, 13 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 258; 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 176; Smith v. St. P. M. & M. Ry., 80 Minn. 
 169, 9 Am & Eng R. R. Cas. 262; Iron R. R. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 418, 
 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 361 ; Buel v. N. Y. C. R. R., 31 N. Y. 314 ; S. W. R. 
 R. v. Panlk, 21 Ga, 356 ; Wilson v. N. P. R. R., 26 Minn. 278 ; M. & W. R. 
 R. r. Winn, 26 Ga. 250. 
 
 * L. R. 4 C. P. 739.
 
 16 INJURIES IX AVOIDING INCONVENIENCES. 
 
 shut the door three times, attempted for the fourth 
 time to elose it within three minutes of the time of 
 arrival of the train at a station, and, in so doing, he fell 
 out and was injured. Judgment was entered for the 
 defendant upon the ground that, as the inconvenience 
 to the plaintiff from the open door was slight, and the 
 peril in attempting to close it was considerable, the in- 
 jury resulting from that attempt was caused solely by 
 his own carelessness. 1 On the other hand, in W. M. 
 R. R. v . Stanley, 2 a passenger was held entitled to re- 
 cover for injuries received in attempting to close the 
 door of his car while passing through a tunnel, the 
 railway having omitted to light the car, and the open 
 door inconveniencing the plaintiff and the other pas- 
 sengers in the car by its admission of smoke and cinders. 
 In cases such as these, probably the true ground of de- 
 cision is that the plaintiff cannot recover if in attempt- 
 ing to avoid that which is merely inconvenient, and in 
 no sense dangerous, he encounters a danger obviously 
 apparent to the minds of reasonable men ; but, on the 
 other hand, as Brett, J., 3 said, " if the inconvenience is 
 so great that it is reasonable to get rid of it by an act 
 not obviously dangerous, and executed without careless- 
 ness," the railway " would be liable for any injury that 
 might result from an attempt to avoid such inconveni- 
 ence." 
 
 1 In the later case of Gee v. M. Ey., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161, Adams v. L. & Y. 
 Ry. is commented on, and the application to the facts of that case of the doc- 
 trine as above stated, questioned. 
 
 2 61 Md. 266, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206. 
 s Adams v. L. & Y. Ry., L. R. 4 C. P. 744.
 
 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 17 
 
 Tlie railway ought not to be held liable in damages for injuries which 
 result not from its negligence, but solely from the attempt of the in- 
 jured person to obviate by his own rash act an inconvenience caused 
 to him by the railway s breach of contract. 
 
 21. There are also other cases which, though in 
 reality very different from those referred to in section 
 19, are generally decided upon the same principle, and 
 those are the cases of passengers who, when the railway 
 does not bring its train to a stop at a station, or does 
 not stop the train for a sufficient length of time to 
 enable them to enter or alight from the train in safety, 
 attempt to get on or off the train while it is in motion, 
 and are thereby injured. Many of the authorities hold 
 that the rule of decision in such cases is that the rail- 
 way is to be held liable for injuries thus caused, unless 
 the jury shall find that the person injured in getting on 
 or off the cars encountered a danger obviously apparent 
 to the minds of reasonable men. Other authorities hold, 
 that such injuries are self inflicted, and that the railway 
 is not to be held liable therefor. The principle involved 
 in these cases was ruled in Clayards v. Dethick, 1 where 
 the defendant had dug a dangerous trench in the only 
 outlet from a mews, and the plaintiff's horse in coming- 
 out of the mews fell into the ditch and was killed. Den- 
 man, C. J., directed the jury "that it could not be the 
 plaintiff's duty to refrain altogether from coming out of 
 the mews merely because the defendant had made the 
 passage in some degree dangerous, * * * though, if the 
 plaintiff had persisted in running upon a great and 
 obvious danger his action could not be maintained." 
 A verdict having passed for the plaintiff, a rule for a 
 new trial was discharged. Clayards v. Dethick is cited 
 with approval and followed in Thompson v. N. E. Ry., 2 
 
 1 12 Q. B. 439 ; 64 E. C. L. 
 
 * 2B. &S. 106; HOE. C. L.
 
 J 8 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 
 
 where the defendants as proprietors of a dock and tidal 
 basin, which they had opened for use before its con- 
 struction had been completed by dredging it throughout 
 to the required depth, were held liable in damages to 
 the owner of a ship which had grounded in leaving the 
 dock, although the pilot knew that the channel of 
 requisite depth was narrow, for the verdict of the jury 
 having negatived negligence on the part of the plain- 
 tiff, the plaintiff's recovery was not to be prevented 
 without proof that the state of the basin was such as to 
 render it imprudent to attempt to take the vessel out. 
 In Siner v. G. W. By., 1 where it was held that the 
 railway was not liable to a female passenger who was 
 injured in descending from a railway carriage, because 
 she chose to jump down rather than to avail herself of 
 the steps of the carriage, Kelly, C. B., said, in his dis- 
 senting judgment, 2 " I am clearly of opinion, however, 
 that a railway company are not entitled to expose any 
 passenger to the necessity of choosing between two alter- 
 natives, neither of which he could lawfully be called on 
 to choose, namely, either to go on to Bangor or to take 
 his chance of danger and jump out ; and if they do so 
 the choice is made at their peril." 3 
 
 22. On the other hand, in Lax v. Darlington, 4 
 Bramwell, L. J., said : " A person traveling on a 
 railway is taken to some place where he ought not 
 to have been taken — beyond a platform, for instance. 
 He jumps out, risking the danger, and hurts him- 
 self. In my opinion in such a case as that he ought 
 to have no remedy against the company for the 
 hurt; if he chooses to jump out and hurt himself, he 
 
 1 L. R. 3 Ex. 150 ; 4 Id. 117. 2 L. R. 3 Ex. 156. 
 
 8 Similar views are expressed in Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. Y. 47 ; P. R. 
 R. v. Kilgore, 32 Penna. St. 292; Johnson v. W. C. & P. R. R., 70 Id. 357, 
 and in many other cases. 
 
 * 5 Ex. D. 35.
 
 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 10 
 
 must take the hurt. What he must do is to sit in 
 the carriage and be carried on beyond where he wants 
 to go, and then bring his action against the com- 
 pany for not affording him proper accommodation to 
 get out. I have no doubt of the good sense of that ; 
 I have not a misgiving of it, and I cannot agree to a 
 great deal of what was said in the case of Clayards 
 v. Dethick. 1 It was there asked, 'was the cabman 
 bound to stay in all day ?' Bound ! Bound to whom ? 
 A person being bound supposes his being bound to 
 somebody. It is an inaccurate expression. One does 
 not care about words except when they mislead. The 
 expression 'bound' was used there. Why, of course, 
 he was not bound, because there was nobody to say to 
 him, ' you shall.' But if he chooses to go out with an 
 obvious danger before him he must take the conse- 
 quences. Suppose a man is shut up in the top room of 
 a house unlawfully, is he bound to stay there ? He is 
 not bound to do anything of the kind; he may jump ' 
 out if he likes to run the risk of breaking his neck or 
 his limbs ; he may let himself down by a rope or a 
 ladder, but if he runs the risk of getting out and breaks 
 his neck, the person who shuts him up is not guilty of 
 manslaughter ; and if he breaks his leg he ought not to 
 have any right of action against that person, although 
 he was not bound to stay there. Then there was an- 
 other expression used which I cannot help thinking 
 was an unfortunate one. It was this : ' What would a 
 prudent man do?' Just see the consequence of that 
 sort of reasoning. A prudent cabman with a good 
 horse having a shilling fare offered to him would have 
 stopped at home ; a prudent cabman with a bad horse and 
 a pound fare would have chanced it. The consequences 
 would be that he could recover if he hurt a bad horse, 
 
 1 12 Q. B. 439 ; 64 E. C. L.
 
 20 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 
 
 but could not recover if he hurt a good one. The truth 
 is, to talk of what a prudent man would do is a mis- 
 leading way of considering the matter. A prudent 
 man would lead a forlorn hope under some circum- 
 stances, because the possible gain, in his estimation, 
 would be equal to the risk. It is not, therefore, a 
 question of prudence. I dare say a prudent man might 
 jump out of a train going very fast, if he saw some im- 
 minent danger to his wife or child, or anybody for 
 whom he had great affection, and he could immediately 
 go and rescue them. It is not, therefore, a question of 
 prudence as far as he is concerned. I think that case 
 — I should not have discussed it at the length I have 
 done if an erroneous idea was not conveyed by it — can 
 only be justified on a ground which, I think, will be 
 found, especially in the judgment of Wightman, J., 
 and upon which I am inclined to think some of the 
 judges really decided it. It is this : That the danger 
 there was not an obvious one ; that when the cabman 
 went out he got into trouble from what, in truth, 
 was a pitfall, the nature of which he was unaware of, 
 but which had been prepared for him by the defendant. 
 Upon that ground, perhaps, the judgment may be sup- 
 ported ; but I have a misgiving, even then, whether, 
 when there was a danger of accident, it was not his — I 
 will not say his duty — but whether it was not for him 
 to ascertain the extent of it before he ran the risk of it. 
 However, I think it is upon that ground only that the 
 case can be sustained. It is said that it has been after- 
 ward cited and adopted in Wyatt v. G. W. Ky. 1 It was 
 no doubt cited and adopted, but I am very much inclined 
 to think it was adopted upon the principle that I have 
 mentioned, and that may be seen especially from the 
 judgment of the majority of the court. If Clayards v. 
 
 1 6 B. & S. 709 ; 118 E. C. L. ; 34 L. J. (Q. B.) 204.
 
 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 2L 
 
 Dethick and Wyatt v. Great Western By. Co. are 
 adopted to their full extent, I am constrained to express 
 my distrust of those cases." 
 
 23. The result reached in Wyatt v. G. W. By., 1 is 
 inconsistent with the doctrine of Clayards v. Dethick, 
 for it was there held that a person who while traveling 
 on a highway had been injured in opening for himself, 
 the railway servants being absent, a statutory gate which 
 a railway had erected at a local crossing, and which, when 
 closed, barred the highway, could not recover. Bram- 
 well, B., said forcibly in Siner v. G. W. Ry., 2 "suppose the 
 defendants had covenanted with the plaintiff, under seal, 
 to carry her to a particular place, and to provide proper 
 means of exit from the carriage, and that the plaintiff, 
 declaring upon the covenant, alleged a breach of con- 
 tract, and then went on to say, per quod, I jumped from 
 the carriage, and in so doing hurt myself, would that be 
 per quod f Would it be damage legitimately flowing 
 from the breach of contract ? I think not. She could 
 only say that her act was led or induced, not that it 
 was caused, by their breach of contract. It could not 
 be said that her jumping out was a legitimate conse- 
 quence of their neglect, and it is none the more so 
 because she sues in tort. The question has been argued 
 as if it were one of contributory negligence ; but it is 
 not. The whole mischief resulted from the plaintiff's 
 own act, and even assuming negligence in the defend- 
 ants, that negligence was not the cause of the accident." 
 
 24. Unquestionably, the true ground of decision in 
 cases of this class is that which is suggested by the dicta 
 quoted from the judgment of Bramwell, J., in Siner's 
 case. The obligation of a railway to take up or set down 
 a passenger at a particular station is an obligation de- 
 
 1 6 B. & S. 709 ; 118 E. C. L. 
 
 2 L. R. 3 Ex. 154.
 
 22 INJURIES IN BOARDING OR LEAVING TRAINS. 
 
 pendent solely upon the contract between the particular 
 passenger and the railway, and not an obligation arising 
 out of the general duty of the railway to its passengers. 
 When, therefore, the railway does not stop its train at 
 the particular station at which it has contracted to 
 receive or deliver the passenger, or when the railway 
 does not stop its train at that station for a sufficient 
 time to enable the passenger to enter or alight from its 
 car, it thereby breaks its contract with the passenger, 
 but it does not inflict upon him that sort of wrong 
 which the law characterizes as a tort. Under such cir- 
 cumstances the passenger who, by the failure of the 
 railway to stop its train, is carried past his station, or 
 is left on the station platform, as the case may be, has 
 his remedy by an action at law against the railway for 
 the breach of its contract, and in that action he can 
 recover the damages which naturally and necessarily 
 result from that breach of contract, that is, compensa- 
 tion for any inconvenience to which the railway's 
 breach of contract has put him. But if, not content 
 with the remedy which the law gives him, or im- 
 pelled by a natural desire to carry out his precon- 
 ceived purpose, he jumps upon or from the train in 
 motion, or does any other act which is the cause of 
 injury to him, the railway ought not to be held liable, 
 for that injury, however unfortunate and however 
 serious, is the result not of the railway's failure to stop 
 its train in accordance with its contract, but of his own 
 rash act. Black, C. J., puts this very forcibly, 1 saying, 
 " If a passenger be negligently carried beyond the sta- 
 tion where he intended to stop, and where he had a 
 right to be let off, he can recover compensation for the 
 inconvenience, the loss of time, and the labor of travel- 
 ing back; because these are the direct consequences 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Aspell, 23 Penn. St. 147.
 
 INJURIES IN AVOIDING HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTIONS. 23 
 
 of the wrong done to him. But if he is foolhardy- 
 enough to jump off without waiting for the train to 
 stop, he does it at his own risk, because this is gross 
 imprudence, for which he can blame nobody but him- 
 self." If the views herein expressed be sound, those cases 
 have been wrongly decided wherein it has been held 
 that, under such circumstances, the plaintiff can recover. 
 25. Another class of cases in which the same result 
 should be reached is that of adult persons, who, find- 
 ing a railway crossing of a highway blocked by cars, 
 attempt to pass under or climb over the cars, and in so 
 doing are injured. In these cases there is, of course, no 
 contractual relation between the person injured and the 
 railway, but every such person has his remedy by action 
 against the railway for his individual loss resulting from 
 its obstruction of the highway, and any injuries which 
 he may bring upon himself in his efforts to avoid the 
 inconvenience caused by that obstruction are self in- 
 flicted, and are not justly chargeable to the railway. 
 Of course, where, under such circumstances, the person 
 injured, is by infancy or otherwise, incapacitated from 
 realizing the danger of doing the act which causes the 
 injury, a different principle applies, and the railway 
 may justly be held liable for its negligence in leaving 
 upon a highway that which may become a cause of injury 
 to persons so incapacitated. The mistaken result which 
 has been reached in so many of the cases of injuries 
 incurred in getting on or off moving cars, or in climb- 
 ing over or in passing under cars which obstruct a 
 highway crossing, is largely due to the fact that those 
 cases are, in general, considered to raise questions of 
 contributory negligence, whereas they really raise the 
 question of the relation between the plaintiff's injury 
 and the railway's non-performance of its duty as the 
 proximate or remote cause of that injury.
 
 24 ILLUSTRATIONS OF REMOTE NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Illusfratio7is of the general doctrine as to proximate and remote cause: 
 cases in which the negligence proven was held to be too remote. 
 
 26. In further illustration of the general doctrine as 
 to proximate and remote cause, reference may be made 
 to the following cases, in which the negligence proven 
 was held to be too remote to be considered the efficient 
 cause of the injury for which the plaintiff sought repa- 
 ration. In P. C. & St. L. Ry. v. Staley, 1 the railway 
 having unlawfully obstructed a highway crossing by a 
 train at rest, the plaintiff, in order to avoid the ob- 
 struction, turned into another street, and there was in- 
 jured by falling on the ice. In P. S. Ry. v. Taylor, 2 
 the railway had permitted a derailed and overturned 
 car to remain at the side of a highway crossing, and 
 the plaintiff's horse was frightened thereby. In Jack- 
 son v. N. C. & St. L. Ry., 3 the railway obstructed a 
 highway crossing by a train, and the plaintiff, in avoid- 
 ing the obstruction by driving across the line at a point 
 where there was no public crossing, and, consequently, 
 no planking between the rails, was jolted out of his 
 vehicle, and thereby injured. In M. Railway v. Jack- 
 son, 4 the carriage in which the passenger was riding 
 being overcrowded, other persons attempted at a station 
 to force their way into the carriage, and the plaintiff, 
 having risen to prevent their entrance as the train 
 started, in order to save himself from falling, put his 
 hand on the edge of the door, where it was caught and 
 crushed by the act of the railway's servant in closing 
 the door, in the performance of his duty. In Hobbs v. 
 L. & S. W. Ry., 5 the railway set down the plaintiff and 
 his wife and children, at night and in a rain storm, at a 
 
 1 41 Ohio St. 118, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 381. 
 s 104 Penna. St. 306. 
 
 8 13 Lea (Tenn.) 491, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 433. 
 * 3 App. Cas. 193. 6 L. R. 10 Q. B. 111.
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF REMOTE NEGLIGENCE. 25 
 
 station several miles distant from, that to which it had 
 agreed to carry them, and the wife contracted a severe 
 illness from walking in the storm. 1 
 
 27. In Cornman v. E. C. Ry., 2 the plaintiff, while in- 
 quiring for a parcel at a station upon a holiday, was 
 forced by a crowd of passengers against a weighing 
 machine, the foot of which projected about six inches 
 above the level of the platform, and was injured by 
 falling over that machine. In Hunter v. Stewart, 3 the 
 plaintiff, an unmarried woman, was disfigured by the 
 negligence of a carrier, and her possibility of successful 
 marriage thereby diminished. In Williamson v. G. T. 
 Ry., 4 the plaintiff was wrongfully expelled from a car, 
 and in leaving it fell and was injured. In Phyfe v. M. 
 Ry., 5 the plaintiff was so severely hurt as to be confined 
 to his house for a time, and he alone being able to open 
 the safe at his place of business, some gold which was 
 stored therein could not be sold, and he thereby lost 
 the profits on its sale. In McClelland v. L. N. A. & 
 C. Ry., 6 the railway was held not to be liable in damages 
 for the death of a drunken jmssenger, who, having been 
 rightfully expelled from a train, subsequently wandered 
 upon the line and was run over by another train, but 
 without fault on the part of the servants in charge of 
 
 1 See, also, in support of the rule in Hobbs' case : Walsh v. C. M. & St. P. 
 Ry., 42 Wise. 23; L. & N. R. R v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 347 ; Lewis v. F. & P. M. Ry., 54 Mich. 55, 18 Am. & Eng 
 R. R. Cas 263 : Francis v. St. L. T. Co., 5 Mo. App. Cas. 7 ; St. L., K. C. & N 
 R. R. v. Trigg, 74 Mo. 147, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345 ; St. L., K. C. & N. 
 R. R. v. Marshal], 78 Mo. 610, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 248 ; sed cf. Brown 
 v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 54 Wise. 342, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 444 ; C, H. & I. 
 R. R. v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 254; L. E. & W. Ry. 
 v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 109. 
 
 2 4 H. & N. 78) *\ 9 ' 3 4 7 Me. 419. 
 
 * 17 Up. Can. (C. P.) 615. 5 30 Hun (N. Y.) 377. 
 
 • 94 Ind. 276, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 260.
 
 2G ILLUSTRATIONS OF PROXIMATE NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 that t rain. 1 In Henry v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 2 a rail- 
 way servant having directed a passenger to change from 
 one car to another at a way station, and the passenger, 
 having as directed gone to the other car, and having 
 been informed by a railway servant that he would not 
 be permitted to remain in that car because its train was 
 not made up, alighted therefrom, and while standing on 
 the line was injured by another train, and it was held 
 that his expulsion from the car was not the proximate 
 cause of his injury. 
 
 Illustrations of the general doctrine as to proximate and remote cause : 
 cases in which the negligence proven was held to be the proximate 
 cause of the injury. 
 
 28. In the following cases the negligence proven was 
 held to be a sufficiently proximate cause of the injury 
 to render the railway responsible therefor ; in P., W. & 
 B. R. R. v. Brannen, 3 the negligent blowing of an 
 engine whistle by an engine driver, thereby frightening 
 a horse on a highway, who, in running away, ran over 
 and injured the plaintiff while walking on the high- 
 way ; 4 the negligence of a railway in not maintaining 
 its roadbed and rails in a condition for the safe move- 
 ment of trains, whereby an engine was derailed, and 
 the engine driver in reversing the lever broke his 
 arm ; 5 the act of the railway's servant in mistakenly 
 putting a female passenger off the train at a station 
 three miles short of the station to which the railway 
 had contracted to carry her, whereby she, being preg- 
 
 1 See, also, Haley v. C. & N. W. R. R-, 21 Iowa 15 ; Ry. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio 
 St. 345. 
 
 2 76 Mo. 288, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1.36. 
 
 3 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 227. See also Lowery v. M. Ry., 99 
 N. Y. 158. 
 
 * See, also, Billman v. I. C. & L. R. R., 76 Ind. 166, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 41. 
 
 * Knapp v. S. C. & P. Ry., 65 Iowa 91, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 60.
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF PROXIMATE NEGLIGENCE. 27 
 
 nant and being unable to ojbtain means of conveyance, 
 walked to her destination, and thereby brought on a 
 miscarriage and subsequent illness. 1 So, where a pas- 
 senger, having been ejected from a train in such man- 
 ner that he was run over by that train, and subse- 
 quently by another train of the railway defendant, and 
 death ensued, it was held that there was a cause of 
 action vested in his personal representatives under the 
 Georgia statute, whether the first or second train 
 actually caused his death. 2 So, in Eames v. T. & N. 
 O. E. R, 3 it was held that the failure of a railway to 
 cut clown on its right of w^ay bushes which afforded cover 
 to straying cattle was the proximate cause of injury to 
 cattle who, suddenly emerging from such cover and 
 going upon the line, were run over by a train before 
 the servants in charge of it could bring it to a stop. 
 So, in Hayes v. M. C. E. E., 4 where the railway was, 
 by reason of its failure to perform a statutory duty of 
 fencing its line on the borders of a public park, held 
 liable for the injuries of a boy who had strayed upon 
 the line and been run over by a train, Matthews, J., 
 said : " It is further argued that the direction of the 
 court below was right, because the want of a fence 
 could not reasonably be alleged as the cause of the 
 injury. In the sense of an efficient cause, causa causans, 
 this is no doubt strictly true ; but that is not the sense 
 in which the law uses the term in this connection. The 
 question is, was it causa sine qua non — a cause which, 
 if it had not existed, the injury would not have taken 
 place — an occasional cause ; and that is a question of fact, 
 
 1 Brown v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 54 Wis. 342, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 444. 
 
 2 S. C. R. R. v. Nix, 68 Ga. 572. 
 
 3 63 Tex. 660, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 540. 
 
 * 111 U. S. 228, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 394.
 
 28 SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED INJURIES. 
 
 unless the casual connection is evidently not proxi- 
 mate." 1 
 
 The raihcay is liable for subsequently developed injuries that can- 
 not be proved to have resulted from a sufficient and independent 
 
 29. Where the question of proximate and remote 
 cause turns on the connection between some subse- 
 quently developed personal injury to the plaintiff and 
 the original injury, the rule deducible from the cases 
 seems to be that the railway is responsible for every such 
 subsequently developed injury that cannot be proven 
 to have resulted from a sufficient independent cause ; 
 thus railways have been held liable for cancer following 
 at an interval of three weeks after a blow on the breast 
 of a female passenger ; 2 for death by malarial fever fol- 
 lowing upon a fall into a creek at night; 3 for the 
 death of a child by pneumonia following upon the 
 shock of a blow from an engine ; 4 for hernia following 
 nine months after a scalding by an escape of steam 
 from an engine ; 5 for the death of a person under a 
 surgical operation which was made necessary by the 
 original injury, and which, although performed by 
 a competent surgeon, was unsuccessful; 6 for a pre- 
 mature confinement and birth of a dead child re- 
 
 1 See also Williams v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 9 Ex. 157 ; Maher v. W. & St. P. 
 By., 31 Minn. 401, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 572 ; Smith v. St. P., M. & M. 
 Ry., 30 Minn. 1 G9, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 262 ; Hynes v. S. F. & N. P. R. R., 
 65 Cal. 316, 20 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 486 ; Schmidt v. M. & St. P. Ry., 23 
 Wis. 186: Q. Fitzgerald v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 29 Minn. 336, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 310 ; Knight v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 99 N. Y. 25. 
 
 * B. C. P. Ry. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas, 220. 
 
 3 T. H. & J. Ry. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 234. 
 
 * Jucker v. C. & N. W. R. R., 52 Wis. 150, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 41. 
 
 6 Delie v. C. & N. W. R. R, 51 Wis. 400. 
 
 6 Sauter v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R R. % N. Y. 50.
 
 INJURIES CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD. 29 
 
 suiting from fright caused to a pregnant female passen- 
 ger by a collision. 1 So, in Allison v. C. & N. W. Ry., 2 
 it was held that a passenger who had been injured by 
 the fault of the railway, and thereafter, while being 
 carried by the railway as a passenger, was again injured 
 by its fault, could recover for the second injury and for 
 its effects, although those effects were aggravated by the 
 prior injury. 3 On the other hand, the railway has been 
 held not to be liable for the death of a passenger by 
 suicide eiffht months after a collision in which he re- 
 ceived blows on the head and spine ; 4 nor for the possi- 
 bility of a second and future fracture of a leg by reason 
 of the oblique character of a fracture which had been 
 caused by the railway's negligence. 5 
 
 VI. THE LIABILITY FOE INJURIES CAUSED BY AN ACT 
 
 OF GOD. 
 
 A railway 13 not liable for injuries resulting from an " act of God," 
 and without negligence on its part. 
 
 30. A railway is not liable for injuries caused by an 
 " act of God," which, as defined by James, L. J., in Nugent 
 v. Smith, 6 is the result of the operation of " natural 
 causes, directly and exclusively, without human inter- 
 vention," and which " could not have been prevented 
 by any amount of foresight and pains and care reason- 
 ably to be expected" of the railway. Thus in Withers 
 v. N. K. Ry., 7 an embankment which had been stand- 
 ing for five years, in a country subject to floods, was 
 
 1 Fitzpatriek v. G. W. Ry., 12 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 645 ; Beauchamp v. S. Min- 
 ing Co., 50 Mich. 163 ; Barbee v. Reese, 60 Miss. 906. 
 
 2 42 Iowa 274. 
 
 1 See, also, N. C. Ry. v. The State, 29 Md. 420. 
 
 « Scheffer v. W. C V. M. & G. S. R. R., 105 U. S. 249. 
 
 5 Lincoln v. S. & S. R. R., 23 Wend. 425. 
 
 « 1 C. P. D. 444. '3H.&N. 969.
 
 30 INJURIES CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD. 
 
 undermined by an extraordinary flood. The train on 
 which the plaintiff was a passenger, and which was run- 
 ning at express speed, ran off the line at night by reason 
 of the sinking of the embankment, and the plaintiff was 
 injured. After a verdict for the plaintiff, a rule for a 
 new trial was made absolute, Pollock, C. B., saying: 
 " The company were not bound to have constructed their 
 embankment so as to meet such extraordinary floods." 
 In P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 1 the accident was like- 
 wise caused by the fall of an embankment, but there 
 was contradictory testimony with regard to the original 
 construction of the embankment, engineering experts 
 differing as to whether it had been so drained as to 
 carry off the water. There was also proof that the 
 train was drawn by an engine reversed, and that so 
 running the engine at night and in a storm was negli- 
 gence. Judgment upon a verdict for the plaintiff was 
 affirmed in error upon the ground that upon the evi- 
 dence thus stated the question was properly left to the 
 jury. In B. & O. R. R. v. S. S. Independent School 
 District, 2 the district sued to recover damages for the 
 destruction of its school-house, which was carried away 
 by a flood which a culvert under the railway embank- 
 ment was not sufficiently large to pass. Judgment upon 
 a verdict for the plaintiff was reversed in error, because 
 the court below had instructed the jury in effect that 
 negligence upon the part of the defendant concurring 
 with the act of God, although that negligence did not 
 produce the injury, and its absence would not have pre- 
 vented it, was sufficient to render the defendant liable, 
 Green, J., saying, "If the act of God in this particular 
 case was of such an overwhelming and destructive char- 
 acter as by its own force, and independently of the par- 
 ticular negligence alleged or shown, produced the injury, 
 
 1 94 Penna. St. 351. 2 96 Tenna. St. G5.
 
 INJURIES CAUSED BY ACT OF GOD. 31 
 
 there would be no liability, although there were some 
 negligence in the maintenance of the particular struct- 
 ure. To create liability it must have required the com- 
 bined effect of the act of God and the concurring neg- 
 ligence to produce the injury." In P., F. W. & C. Ky. 
 v. Brigham, 1 the plaintiff sued to recover for injuries 
 caused by the fall of the roof of a station-house, which 
 was blown down by a storm, the roof having stood for 
 eighteen years, and the testimony being conflicting as to 
 whether the roof had been properly constructed, and as to 
 the usual or unusual character of the storm. Judgment 
 upon a verdict for the plaintiff was reversed in error, be- 
 cause the judge at the trial instructed the jury "that the 
 defendants were bound to provide against all storms which 
 could reasonably have been expected, and by plain im- 
 plication that the defendants were bound to provide 
 against all storms that were not unprecedented, or were 
 of a kind that had ever happened within the range of 
 human experience," whereas the liability ought to have 
 been made to turn upon the question of whether or not 
 the defendants had used " that degree of care which a 
 man of ordinary prudence is accustomed to employ in 
 constructing or maintaining a building " for such a pur- 
 pose. The general principle, thus stated, is supported 
 by many authorities. 2 
 
 31. Carefully constructed and operated railways are, 
 
 * 29 Ohio St. 374. 
 
 2 G. W. Ry. v. Braid, 1 Moore P. C N. S. 101 ; Nichols v. Marsland, 2 Ex. 
 D. 1 ; P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Brigham, 29 Ohio St. 374 ; Lehigh Bridge v. L. C. 
 & N. Co., 4 Rawle 9 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 Penna. St 351 ; B. & O. 
 R. R. v. School District, 96 Id. 65, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 166 ; Foster v. 
 Juniata Bridge Co., 16 Penna St. 393 ; P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Giileland, 56 Id. 
 445; Livezey v. Philadelphia, 64 Id. 100; Welker v. N. C. R. R., 1 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 210; Hayes v. Kennedy, 41 Id. 378 ; Morrison v. Davis, 
 20 Id. 171 ; Gould v. McKenna, 86 Id. 297 ; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 423 ; 
 I. & G. N. R. R. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 343 ; M. & 
 C. R. R. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176 ; Gates v. S. M. R. R., 23 Minn. 110, 2 Am. & 
 Eng R. R. Cas. 237 ; Denny v. N. Y. C. R. R., 13 Gray 481.
 
 32 RECURRING ACT OF GOD. 
 
 therefore, not to be held liable for injuries resulting 
 from the carrying away of their embankments or bridges 
 by sudden and extraordinary floods ; * nor from the pros- 
 tration of their station buildings in an extraordinary 
 gale; 2 nor when the train is blown from the track by a 
 cyclone ; 3 nor when a train is derailed by the breaking 
 of a rail by sudden frost. 4 Under these authorities, the 
 duty of the railway, as to its line and buildings, is ade- 
 quately performed if they be so constructed as to resist 
 the ordinary and probable action of the elements ; but 
 in K. P. Ry. v. Miller, 5 a higher measure of responsi- 
 bility was wrongly imposed, for it was there held that 
 the railway is liable if it fail to provide against any 
 extraordinary floods which may in the exercise of the 
 highest degree of care be anticipated. 
 
 An extraordinary natural event does not, by occurring a second time, 
 cease to be properly characterized as an " act of God." 
 
 32. To constitute an extraordinary natural event, in 
 a legal sense, an " act of God," it is not necessary that 
 such an event has never happened before, nor does such 
 an event, by happening a second time, cease to be an 
 " act of God ;" thus in P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Gilleland, 6 
 the judge, at the trial, in his direction to the jury, having 
 said : " Now, under these circumstances, it will be for 
 you to determine whether the defendants ought or ought 
 not after the first and second floods to alter their culvert 
 
 1 Withers v. N. K. Ry., 3 II. & N. 969 ; G. W. Ry. v. Braid, 1 Moore P. C. 
 N. S. 101 ; I. & G. N. R. R v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 3 Am & Eng. R. R Cas. 
 343 ; Gates v S. M. Ry , 28 Minn. 110, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 237 ; H. & T. C. 
 Ry. v. Fowler, 56 Tex. 452, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 504 ; O. & R. V. Ry. v. 
 Brown, 14 Neb. 170, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 501 ; Ely v. St. L., K. C & N. 
 Ry., 77 Mo. 34, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 342. 
 
 2 P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Brigham, 29 Ohio St. 374. 
 8 McClary v. I. C. By., 3 Neb. 44. 
 
 « McPadden v. N. Y. C. R. R , 44 N. Y. 478. 
 
 5 2 Colo. 442. 6 56 Penna. St. 445.
 
 EECURKING ACT OF GOD. 33 
 
 by enlarging its cavity. Considering the frequency of 
 these floods, was it or was it not negligent in them not 
 to do so after the repeated instances and positive notices, 
 coupled with the request testified to," judgment was re- 
 versed; Agnew, J., in his opinion, said as to this in- 
 struction : " In effect this was to leave it to the jury to 
 find a liability for extraordinary floods, because a second 
 and a third happened like the first, and came in rapid 
 succession. If all were extraordinary, as the instruction 
 concedes, the surprise at the second and third could not 
 be less than at the first, and it was still more surprising 
 that they should come in this rapid succession. Being 
 extraordinary, neither second nor third could ha\e been 
 expected more than the first. The rule as to extraordi- 
 nary floods was therefore not changed. But the frequent 
 recurrence of what was supposed to be extraordinary was 
 some evidence that the real character of all these floods 
 had been mistaken by those who testified as to their ex- 
 traordinary character, and they were really only ordi- 
 nary freshets, though measuring up to the highest alti- 
 tude of that class. It was proper, therefore, to submit 
 this question to the jury with instruction, if they so 
 found the fact, to apply the rule as to ordinary freshets. 
 But from the manner of submitting the instructions, 
 doubtless the jury might understand that they were 
 permitted to allow damages for these extraordinary 
 floods because of their recurrence one after another in 
 so short a time. In this there was error." Fry, J., 
 expressed the same view in his judgment in N. P. & O. 
 C. M. Co. v. L. & St. K. Docks Co., 1 saying : " I do not 
 think that the mere fact that a phenomenon has hap- 
 pened once, when it does not carry with it or import any 
 probability of a recurrence, when, in other words, it 
 does not imply any law from which its recurrence can 
 
 1 9 Ch. D. 515.
 
 34 NEGLIGENCE CONCURRING WITH ACT OF GOD. 
 
 be inferred — places that phenomenon out of the opera 
 tion of the rule of law with regard to the act of God 
 In order that the phenomenon should fall within that 
 rule, it is not, in my opinion, necessary that it should 
 be unique; that it should happen for the first time. It 
 is enough that it is extraordinary, and such as could not 
 reasonably be anticipated." 
 
 Wliere negligence on the part of the railway has concurred vrith an 
 " act of God " in causing the injury, the railway must be held liable 
 therefor. 
 
 33. But, of course, where negligence on the part of a 
 railway has concurred with the act of God in causing 
 the injury, the railway will be held liable, as, for in- 
 stance, where there has been negligence in the original 
 construction of the line ;* or, where the railway ser- 
 vants, being aware that a railway bridge had been car- 
 ried away by a flood, do not take the proper steps to stop 
 an approaching train ; 2 or, where a storm of unusual 
 severity having carried away a properly constructed 
 embankment, the railway ran a train without causing 
 the roadbed and track to be carefully examined in 
 advance of the coming of the train. 3 
 
 1 P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 Penna. St. 356 ; Davis v. C. V. R. R., 55 
 Vt. 84, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173. 
 
 2 Lambkin v. S. E. Ry., 5 App. Cas. 352. 
 
 3 Ellet v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 76 Mo. 518, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 183. See, also, as to the effect of negligence on the part of the railway con- 
 curring with an "act of God" in causing the injury: Dixon v. M. Board of 
 Works, 7 Q, B. D. 418 ; Truitt v. H. & St. J. R. R., 62 Mo. 527 ; B. & O. R. R. 
 v. School District, 96 Penna. St. 65, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 166 ; Straoss v. 
 W., St. L. & P. Ry., 17 Fed. Rep. 209.
 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT. 35 
 
 VTI. THE LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY AN ACT 
 OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY. 
 
 Railways are not liable for injuries resulting from an act of a public 
 
 enemy. 
 
 34. Railways are not liable for injuries caused, with- 
 out negligence on their part, by an act of the public 
 enemy, as, where a railway bridge having been burned 
 by an armed force in rebellion against the government 
 of the United States, a train was, without negligence on 
 the part of the railway, precipitated into the chasm. 1 
 
 VIII. THE LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY INEVIT- 
 ABLE ACCIDENT. 
 
 The railway is not liable for injuries caused, without negligence on its 
 part, by inevitable accident. 
 
 35. Railways are not to be held liable for injuries 
 resulting from inevitable accident, that is, accident not 
 due in any way to negligence on the part of the rail- 
 way, and such as no human foresight could avert. The 
 distinction between an act of God and an inevitable 
 accident is, that in the one case there is, and in the 
 other case there is not, the presence and operation of 
 vis major ; 2 thus, the railway was held not to be liable 
 for the death of a boy who climbed on a moving coal car, 
 and, having dropped his hat, fell, in the effort to re- 
 cover it, and was killed ; 3 nor where a child having hid 
 himself in a ditch on the line was discovered by the 
 
 1 Sawyer v. H. & St. J. R. R., 37 Mo. 240. 
 
 2 Aston v. Heaven, 2 Esp. 533; Hammack v. White, 11 C. B. N. S. 588, 103 
 E. C. L. ; Beach v. Parmeter, 23 Penna. St. 197 ; A. T. & S. F. R. R. v. Flinn, 24 
 Kans. 627, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 240; Hallihan v. St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 
 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 117; Maschek v. St. L. R. R., 71 Mo. 276, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38 ; H. M. & F. P. Ry. v. Kelley, 102 Penna. St. 115. 
 
 3 Woodbridge v. D. L. & W. R. R., 105 Penna. St. 460, 16 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 55.
 
 36 SELF-CAUSED INJURIES. 
 
 engine driver too late to stop the train j 1 nor where 
 boys, having, without the knowledge of the train men, 
 climbed upon a moving freight car, were thrown off by 
 a jolt in rounding a curve. 2 Upon the same principle 
 the railway is held not to be liable to its passengers for 
 injuries resulting from a hidden defect in its machinery 
 or appliances, which, by the exercise of care upon its 
 part, would not have been discovered. 
 
 TX. THE LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED SOLELY BY 
 THE ACT OF THE INJURED PERSON. 
 
 The railway is not liable for injuries caused solely by the act of the 
 injured person. 
 
 36. Railways are not liable for injuries solely caused 
 by the act of the injured party, without negligence on 
 the part of the railway ; thus, in Caswell v. Worth, 3 
 the plaintiff, a servant, having declared upon a breach 
 by his master, the defendant, of a statutory duty to 
 fence certain dangerous machinery, the defendant 
 pleaded specially that the plaintiff wilfully and know- 
 ingly, and contrary to the express commands of the 
 defendant, set the machinery in motion, and, on de- 
 murrer, judgment was entered for the defendant. 4 So, 
 where a railway, in obedience to a statute, had erected 
 gates at a crossing but did not have any person in at- 
 tendance to open and close them, and the plaintiff at 
 night had opened the gates himself, and while he was 
 driving through, the gates in swinging struck and 
 frightened the plaintiff's horse, whereby the plaintiff 
 was thrown out and injured, it was held that the railway 
 
 1 Meyer v. M. P. R. R., 2 Neb. 320. 
 
 2 State, etc., v. B. & O. R. R., 24 Md. 84. 
 8 5 El. & Bl. 849, 85 E. C. L. 
 
 * See, also, the cases put by Coleridge, J., in summing up in Woolf v. Beard, 
 8 C. & P. 373, 34 E. C. L.
 
 ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF SERVANTS, ETC. 37 
 
 was not liable. 1 Nor ought the motive, however praise- 
 worthy, which induces the person injured to do the act 
 which is demonstrably the sole cause of his injury, 
 render the railway liable for that injury ; thus, in E. 
 & C. E. K. v. Hiatt, 2 it was held that a son, who in 
 order to save his father's life, stepped upon the line in 
 front of a moving train and was injured, could not 
 recover from the railway. A contrary conclusion was 
 reached in Eckert v. L. I. Ky., 3 where the plaintiff's 
 decedent, standing near a railway line and seeing a 
 child between the rails before a rapidly approaching 
 train, rushed upon the line and threw the child off at 
 the cost of his own life, and judgment upon a verdict 
 for the plaintiff was affirmed in error by a divided 
 court, Allen and Folger, JJ., dissenting. It is obvious 
 that, in each of these cases, the question at issue was as 
 to negligence on the part of the railway, and not as to 
 contributory negligence on the part of the person in- 
 jured, and that in neither case did the railway owe any 
 duty to the person injured, and, for that reason, it could 
 not be negligent as to him. The Indiana case was, there- 
 fore, rightly, and the New York case wrongly, decided. 
 
 X. THE LIABILITY FOE, OMISSIONS AND ACTS OF COM- 
 MISSION BY AGENTS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 The railway is liable for an omission to perform its duty, by whomso- 
 ever that performance is omitted, and for negligent acts of commission, 
 if the negligent act be done by Us agent or servant. 
 
 37. Upon the principle stated by Blackburn, J., 4 
 where the injury is done by the omission of a particular 
 act of care, which the duty of the railway to the person 
 injured required it to do for his protection, the fact of 
 
 1 Wyatt v. G. W. lly., 6 B. & S. 709, 118 E. C. L. 
 
 » 17 [nd. 102. 3 43 N. Y. 502. 
 
 * The Mersey Docks Trustees i. Gibbs, L R. 1 H. L. 115.
 
 OO ACTS OF OTHERS THAN SERVANTS. 
 
 the omission fixes the liability of the railway, and the 
 relation between the railway and the person who has 
 omitted to perform the particular duty is immaterial, 
 but where the injury is the result of misfeasance, the 
 liability of the railway is necessarily dependent not 
 only upon the character of the act done, but also upon 
 the relation of express or implied agency between the 
 railway and the wrongdoer, for, as Rolfe, B., said, 1 
 " the liability of any one other than the party actually 
 guilty of a wrongful act proceeds on the maxim qui 
 facit per alium facit per se." 
 
 XI. THE LIABILITY FOR THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF 
 THOSE WHO ARE NOT AGENTS OR SERVANTS. 
 
 Railways are not liable for the negligent acts of persons who are not 
 agents nor servants of the railway. 
 
 38. Kail ways are not to be held liable for injuries 
 caused solely by the acts of persons who do not hold to 
 the railway any relation of express or implied agency, 
 as, for instance, where the injury results from the act 
 of a stranger in placing obstruction on the line ; 2 or, in 
 turning a switch so as to derail a train ; 3 or, in putting 
 on the track a fog signal, which, being exploded by the 
 train, injured a passenger. 4 Nor is the railway liable 
 where injury to a passenger results from the falling 
 upon a railway carriage of a bridge girder, which was 
 being placed in position by a contractor engaged by 
 another corporation, the railway having no reason to 
 anticipate negligence on the part of the contractor; 5 
 
 1 Reedie v. L. & N. W. Ry., 4 Ex. 243. 
 
 2 Curtis v. R. & S. R. R., 18 N. Y. 534 ; Harris v. U. P. R. R., 13 Fed. Rep. 
 591, 4 MeCrary 454. 
 
 3 Latch v. R. Ry., 27 L. J. Exeh. 155, 3 H. & N. 930 (American edition) ; 
 Keeley v. E. Ry., 47 How. Pr. 25G. 
 
 * Jones v. g" T. Ry., 45 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 193. 
 
 5 Daniel v. M. Ry.", L. R. 3 C. P. 216, 591, 5 H. L. 45.
 
 CONCURRING NEGLIGENCE OF THIRD PARTIES. 39 
 
 nor, for injuries resulting from negligence upon the part 
 of another railway in the exercise of statutory running 
 powers over the defendant's line; 1 nor, for injuries 
 caused to a passenger by a mob of disorderly intruders 
 who forced their way into the train and assaulted the 
 passenger ; 2 nor, in general, for the acts or omissions of 
 independent contractors employed by the railway. 
 
 Negligence on the part of the railway is not excused by the concurrence 
 of the negligence of a third party unconnected with either the 
 railway or the injured person. 
 
 39. Where the plaintiff's injury can be traced to 
 negligence on the part of the railway as its primary 
 and proximate cause, the concurrence of the negligence 
 of a person unconnected with either the railway or the 
 person injured will not relieve the railway from respon- 
 sibility for the consequences of its negligence. This 
 general doctrine is asserted in many cases. 3 One of the 
 latest illustrations of this doctrine is to be found in the 
 case of Smith v. N. Y. S. & "W. R. R., 4 where a railway 
 was held liable for injuries caused by collision resulting 
 from the movement of certain cars which had been neg- 
 ligently left on a siding in such a situation that a 
 
 1 Taylor v. G. N. Ry., L. R. 1 C. P. 385 ; Wright v. M. Ry., L. R. 8 Ex. 
 
 137. 
 
 2 P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Hinds, 53 Penna. St. 512. 
 
 3 Scott v. Shepherd, 3 Wils. 403, 2 W. BL 892, 2 Sm. Lead. Cas. 797 ; 
 Dixon v. Bell, 5 M. & S. 198 ; Illidge v. Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 190, 24 E. C. L. , 
 Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29, 41 E. C. L. ; Daniels v. Potter, 4 C. & P. 262, 19 
 E. C. L. ; Hughes v. Macfie, Abbott v. Macfie, 2 H. & C. 744 ; Bird v. Hol- 
 brook, 4 Bing. 628, 15 E. C. L.; Hill v. N. R. Co., 9 B. & S. 303; Collins v. 
 M. L. Comrars., L. R. 4 C P. 279; Harrison v. G. N. Ry., 3 H. & C 231; 
 Sneesby v. L. & Y. Ry., 1 Q. B. D. 42 ; Clark r. Chambers, 3 Q. B. D. 327, dis- 
 approving Mangan v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Ex. 239; Smith v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. 
 R. 5 C. P. 98 ; Pittsburgh v. Grier, 22 Penna. St. 54; Scott v. Hunter, 46 Id. 
 192; P. R. R. v. Hope, 80 Id. 373 ; O. C. Gas Co. v. Robinson, 99 Id. 1 ; Hey 
 v. Philadelphia, 2 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 466 ; Raydure v. Knight, Id. 
 713 ; Fawcett v. P. C. & St. L. Ry., 24 W. Va. 755, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1. 
 
 4 46 N. J. L. 7, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 399.
 
 40 NON-PERFORMANCE OF STATUTORY DUTY. 
 
 wrongdoer could readily throw them on to the main 
 line. 1 Nicholson v. E. R. R., 2 which apparently con- 
 tradicts the last-cited case, is, perhaps, distinguish- 
 able in that the person, whose injuries were the subject 
 of the action in that case, was a mere licensee. 
 
 XII. THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY IMPOSED BY 
 STATUTES OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. 
 
 Where the railway fails to perform a duty imposed by a statute, the 
 railway is, by reason of such failure, liable for any injuries directly 
 resulting therefrom, if the statide vests in the person injured a right 
 of action for such non-performance of duty ; but where the injuries 
 do not directly result from such non-performance of duty, or whei'e 
 the statute does not, in terms, vest in tlie person injured a right of 
 action, the railway is not to be held liable solely by reason of such 
 non-performance. 
 
 40. The Stat. Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 50, gives an 
 action on the case to any one aggrieved by the neglect 
 of a statutory duty, 3 but it does not necessarily follow 
 that that which gives the right to sue is conclusive evi- 
 dence of the fact upon which the right to recover must 
 be based. In Couch v. Steel, 4 a ship owner having 
 neglected a statutory duty of keeping on board his ship 
 a proper supply of medicines, it was held that a sailor 
 
 1 See, also, L. & N. R. R. v. McKenna, 13 Lea (Term.) 280, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 276 ; Brown v. P. R. R., 8 Rob. (La.) 45. 
 5 41 N. Y. 525. 
 
 3 Comyn's Dig. Action on Stat. F. ; Rowning v. Goodchild, 2 W. Bl. 906. 
 *3£.&B. 402, 77 E. C. L. 
 
 Note. — All sidings on which cars are stored should be guarded, not only by 
 the locking of the switch connecting with the main line, but also by the locking 
 open of one rail, so as to divert from the main line a car if improperly 
 moved on the siding. In the case of a double tracked line each siding should 
 be so connected with a main line track that cars, in leaving the siding, should 
 proceed in the same direction in which trains proceed on the main line track with 
 which the siding is connected, and all siding switches should be safety switches, 
 preserving the main line unbroken, equipped with targets by day and with 
 lights by night, so arranged as to show automatically when tie switch is 
 open.
 
 NON-PERFORMANCE OF STATUTORY DUTY. 41 
 
 whose health had been injured for want of such medi- 
 cines could maintain his action. In Blamires v. L. & 
 Y. By., 1 it was held that non-compliance with a statutory 
 requirement of maintaining means of communication 
 between passengers and guards, is, where injury has 
 resulted to a passenger from the*want of such means of 
 communication, evidence of negligence. So in Britton 
 v. G. W. Cotton Co., 2 where the plaintiff, an employe, 
 had been injured from the defendant's neglect of the 
 statutory duty of fencing a fly wheel well, it was held 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. So also in 
 Stapley v. L. B. & S. C. By., 3 the same rule was applied 
 where the defendant had neglected its statutory duty of 
 maintaining a servant in charge of the gates across a 
 public carriage-way. In Williams v. G. W. By., 4 where 
 the defendant's line crossed a public footpath, on the 
 level, and the defendant had failed to perform its statu- 
 tory duty of erecting gates, and the plaintiff was found 
 upon the crossing with his foot severed, the defendant's 
 non-fulfilment of its statutory obligation was held to be 
 sufficient evidence of negligence to justify a verdict for 
 the plaintiff. In Hayes v. M. C. B. B., 5 a municipality 
 having under statutory authority made regulations for 
 the fencing of railways within its limits, and the de- 
 fendant having failed to comply with the regulations, 
 and a boy having been injured for want of such fence, 
 it was held that the defendant's neglect of its statutory 
 duty was evidence of negligence. The same doctrine is 
 asserted in Nitro-Bhosphate Co. v. L. S. & St. K. Co., 6 
 where the plaintiff's loss was directly traceable to the 
 defendant's failure to comply with the statutory regula- 
 tion imposed by its charter with regard to the height 
 
 1 L. R. 8 Ex. 283. J L. R. 7 Ex. 130. 
 
 3 L. R. 1 Ex. 21. « L. R. 9 Ex. 157. 
 
 5 111U. S. 228. • L. R. 9 Ch. D. 503.
 
 42 DISOBEDIENCE TO MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. 
 
 of its wall. On the other hand, in Atkinson v. N. & G. 
 Water Works Co., 1 where by statute the defendant was 
 ret pi i red to maintain lire-plugs with a sufficient supply 
 of water, and plaintiff, whose property had been burned 
 through defendant's default in not supplying a sufficient 
 supply of water, brought his action against thern, it was 
 held on demurrer, by the Exchequer of Pleas, that the 
 narr was good, but in the Court of Appeals this was re- 
 versed, upon the ground that the liability to private 
 action for neglect of a statutory duty depends " on the 
 purview of the legislature in the particular statute and 
 the language which they have employed." 2 The rule 
 deducible from the cases seems to be that which is stated 
 in the heading of this section. 
 
 A non-performance of a duty imposed by a municipal ordinance does 
 not per se constitide a ground of liability. 
 
 41. It is held in some cases that disobedience to a 
 municipal ordinance is not a ground of liability. 3 The 
 contrary doctrine is asserted in other cases. 4 It is held 
 in other cases that the failure of a railway to perform a 
 duty imposed by a municipal ordinance may be con- 
 sidered not as negligence, but merely as evidence of 
 negligence. 5 
 
 1 L. R. 6 Ex. 404, 2 Ex. D. 441. 
 
 2 See also Gorris v. Scott, L. R. 9 Exch. 125; Fitzgerald v. St. P., M. & M. 
 Ry., 29 Minn. 3.!6, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 310; Brown v. B. & S. L. R. R. 
 22 N.Y. 191 ; Thayer v. St. L., A. & T. H. R. R., 22 Ind. 26. 
 
 3 P. & R. R. R. v. Ervin, 89 Penna. St. 71 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Boyer, 97 Id. 
 91 ; Ileeney v. Sprague, 11 R. I. 456; Knupfle v. K. I. Co., 84 N.Y. 491. 
 
 * Salisbury v. Ilerchenrodcr, 106 Mass. 458 ; Owings v. Jones, 9 Md. 117; 
 B. C. P. R. R. v. McDonnell, 43 Id. 552 ; Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, 8 Am. <fe 
 Eng. Corpor. Cas. 437. 
 
 6 Kelley v. II. & St. J. R. R., 75 Mo. 138, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 638; 
 Meek v. Penna. Co., 38 Ohio St. 632, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 643; Hanlon 
 r. S. B. H. R. R., 129 Mass. 310, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 18.
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 XIII. ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 43 
 
 Where a railway has injured a person by its negligence, it is no de- 
 fence to the railway that the injury was done in the course of its 
 prosecution of a business which it had under its charter no power 
 to carry on. 
 
 42. As Beasley, C. J., said in K Y., L. E. & W. R. R. 
 
 v. Haring, 1 " it would, indeed, be an anomalous result in 
 legal science if a corporation should be permitted to set 
 up that, inasmuch as a branch of the business prosecuted 
 by it was wrongful, therefore all the special wrongs done 
 to individuals in the course of it were remediless. * * * 
 All wrongs done by such bodies are, in a sense, ult^a 
 vires ; and if the want of a franchise to do the tortious 
 act be a defence, then corporations have a dispensation 
 from liability for these acts peculiar to themselves." In 
 that case the plaintiff having been injured on a street 
 railway which was operated by the defendant, the court 
 held that the railway's want of authorized corporate 
 power to operate the street railway did not release it 
 from legal responsibility for the negligent operation of 
 that street railway. The doctrine of this case is sup 
 ported by other authorities. 2 So in Bissell v. M. S. & 
 N. J. R. R., 3 two railways, one of which had been char- 
 tered by the State of Michigan, and the other by the 
 State of Indiana, and each of which had been author- 
 ized to construct a line within its own State and carry 
 passengers thereon, having together engaged in the 
 business of carrying passengers over a third line in 
 another State, over which line their charter powers did 
 not extend, and a passenger while being carried over 
 
 1 47 N. J. L. 137, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 436. 
 
 2 Hutchinson v. W. & A. R. R., 53 Tenn. 634; Gruber v. W. & J. R. R., 92 
 N. C. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 438. 
 
 s 22 N. Y. 258.
 
 44 ULTKA VIRES. 
 
 that third line having been injured, it was held that the 
 two railways were jointly liable to him. 
 
 43. On the other hand, in Hood v. N. Y. & N. H. 
 K. R., 1 the railway, not being authorized by its charter 
 to carry passengers by coaches to any point, or to carry 
 passengers by any mode of conveyance to C, having 
 contracted with the plaintiff to carry him by rail to P. 
 and thence by coach to C, and the plaintiff having been 
 injured while travelling by coach from P. to C, it was 
 held that the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff 
 for such injuries and was not estopped from pleading 
 that its contract with the plaintiff was ultra vires; but 
 the doctrine of this case is not generally accepted, and 
 the rule is that which is stated in the heading of this 
 section, and which is further illustrated by the cases 
 as to the liability of railways for negligence upon the 
 part of connecting railways. 
 
 1 22 Conn. 1, 23 Id. 509.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 45 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 I. Contributory negligence in general. 
 II. The rule in Davies v. Mann. 
 
 III. The case of T. & F. S. P. Ry. v. Boudrou. 
 
 IV. Comparative negligence. 
 
 V. Negligence in avoiding danger or inconvenience. 
 VI. Non-performance of collateral statutory duty as proof of contributory 
 
 negligence. 
 VII. The contributory negligence of lunatics, idiots, and children. 
 VIII. The plaintiff's contributory negligence when suing for injuries to 
 another. 
 IX. The attribution to the passenger of the carrier's contrilutory negli- 
 gence. 
 X. The attribution of the contributory negligence of one who has been 
 
 killed to those who sue for damages for his death. 
 XL The attribution of the contributory negligence of the contracting 
 
 party to the party on whose behalf the contract was made. 
 XII. The attribution of the contributory negligence of parents and guar- 
 dians to children. 
 XILI. The attribution to the person injured of the contributory negligence 
 of third persons. 
 
 I. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 Where the person injured, or the plaintiff, or any person whose negli- 
 gence is attributable to the plaintiff, has so far contributed to the 
 injury by his want of ordinary care, that, but for such want of 
 ordinary care on his part, the injury woxdd not have been done, 
 the railway is not liable to the plaintiff in damages for such injury. 
 
 44. The doctrine of contributory negligence was first 
 recognized in Butterfield v. Forrester, 1 decided in 1809, 
 where the defendant, for the purpose of repairing his 
 house, having obstructed part of a public highway, the 
 plaintiff, riding hard, at dusk, ran against the obstruc- 
 
 1 11 East 60.
 
 46 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 tion, and was injured. Baylcy, J., directed the jury 
 that if a person riding with reasonable and ordinary 
 care could have seen and avoided the obstruction, and 
 if they were satisfied that the plaintifT was riding ex- 
 tremely hard, and without ordinary care, they should find 
 for the defendant. After a verdict for the defendant, a 
 motion for a rule for a new trial on the ground of misdi- 
 rection was refused, Ellenborough, C. J., saying, "One 
 person being in fault will not dispense with another's 
 using ordinary care for himself. Two things must con- 
 cur to support this action : an obstruction in the road 
 by the fault of the defendant, and no want of ordinary 
 care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff." In Bridge 
 v. G. J. Ry., 1 the plaintifT declared in case, averring a 
 negligent management by the defendant of its train, 
 whereby a collision was caused with a train in which the 
 plaintifT was a passenger. The defendant pleaded spe- 
 cially that those managing the train on which the 
 plaintifT was a passenger were so negligent that, " in 
 part hy their negligence, as well as in part by the defend- 
 ant's negligence," the defendant's train ran against the 
 other, etc. On demurrer, the plea was held bad in 
 form, because it amounted to the general issue, and bad 
 in substance, because it showed no ground for defeating 
 the plaintiff's recovery, Parke, C. B., saying, "Although 
 there may have been negligence on the part of the 
 plaintiff, yet, unless he might, by the exercise of ordi- 
 nary care, have avoided the consequences of the defend- 
 ant's negligence, he is entitled to recover ; if by ordinary 
 care he might have avoided them he is the author of his 
 own wrong." 
 
 45. The rule may, therefore, be formulated in these 
 terms: where the person injured, or the plaintifT, or any 
 person whose negligence is attributable to the plaintiff, 
 1 3 M. & W. 244.
 
 THE REASON OF THE RULE. 47 
 
 has so far contributed to the injury by his want of 
 ordinary care that, but for such want of ordinary care 
 on his part, the injury would not have been done, the 
 , railway is not liable to the plaintiff in damages for such 
 1 injury. Thus stated, the rule is supported by innumer- 
 able authorities. 1 
 
 46. The reason of the rule is that the defendant can- 
 not justly be called upon to indemnify the plaintiff for a 
 wrong which the plaintiff has done to himself. Thus, 
 in Heil v. Glanding, 2 Strong, J., said, " the reason why, 
 in cases of mutual concurring negligence, neither party 
 can maintain an action against the other is, not that the 
 wrong of the one is set off against the wrong of the 
 other ; it is that the law cannot measure how much of 
 the damage suffered is attributable to the plaintiff's own 
 fault. If he were allowed to recover, it might be that 
 he would obtain from the other party compensation for 
 his own misconduct." While a defendant's actionable 
 negligence consists in his failure to perform a duty 
 which he owes to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's contribu- 
 tory negligence is merely a failure to perform a duty 
 which he owes, not to the defendant, but to himself. 
 The law, therefore, draws no distinction between a 
 
 1 Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60; Tnffr. Warman, 5 C. B. N. S. 573, 94 
 E. C. L. ; Bridge v. G. J. Ry., 3 M. & W. 244 ; Holden v. L. N. G. & C. Co., 
 3 M. G. & S. 1, 54 E. C. L. ; Illott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Aid. 304, 5 E. 0. L.; 
 Ellis v. L. & S. W. Ry., 2 H. & N. 424 ; B. & P. R. R. v. Jones, 95 TJ. S. 439 ; 
 P. R. R. v. Aspell, 23 Penna. St. 147 ; ITice v. Kugler, 6 Wh. 336 ; Simpson v. 
 Hand, 6 Id. 311 ; Wynn v. Allard, 5 W. & S. 524; Gould v. McKenna, 86 
 Penna. St. 303 ; 13th & 15th Sts. P. R^. v. Boudrou, 92 Id. 480 ; Heil v. Gland- 
 ing, 42 Id. 493 ; Sills v. Brown, 9 C. & P. 601, 38 E. C. L. ; Creed v. P. R. R., 
 86 Penna. St. 139; Cremer v. Portland, 36 Wise. 92; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Gor- 
 bett, 49 Tex. 573; Mackey v. M. P. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 236; K. C. R. R. v. 
 Thomas, 79 Ky. 160, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79 ; Harper v. E. R. R., 3 
 Vroom. 88 ; Deyo v. N. Y. C. R. R., 34 N. Y. 9 ; J. R. R. v. Hendricks, 26 
 Ind. 228; Higgina ». H. & St. J. R. R., 36 Mo. 418; Sullivan v. L. Bridge 
 Co., 9 Bush 81. 
 J 42 Penna. St. 493, 498.
 
 4S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DEFINED. 
 
 plaintiff's wilful or heedless subjection of himself to 
 peril, and, in either case, the maxim " volenti non fit 
 injuria " is applicable, for it is always to be presumed 
 that one's failure to do one's duty to one's self is volun- 
 tary. 
 
 47. Contributory negligence may, therefore, be de- 
 fined to be that want of reasonable care upon the part 
 of the person injured which concurred with the negli- 
 gence of the railway in causing the injury. 
 
 48. Contributory negligence can, therefore, be proved 
 only by showing, first, that on the part of the plain- 
 tiff something has either been done, or omitted to be 
 done, which, under the circumstances and from a pru- 
 dent regard for the plaintiff's safety, ought, in the one 
 case, to have been omitted, or, in the other case, to 
 have been done ; and, second, that that particular act of 
 commission or omission on the part of the plaintiff con- 
 curred with the defendant's breach of duty in causing 
 the injury to the plaintiff. If the proofs fail to show 
 either of these elements the plaintiff's contributory 
 negligence cannot be said to be established. In this 
 view, it is essential, as Coleridge, J., said, 1 that that 
 negligence upon the part of the plaintiff which is to 
 bar his recovery, should have substantially contributed 
 to the occurrence of the injury, and not merely to its 
 amount. 2 
 
 49. In Martin v. G. N. Ey., 3 Jervis, C. J., and 
 Maule, J., doubted whether the defence of contributory 
 negligence is available to a railway when sued by a 
 passenger for personal injuries, for the reason that the 
 
 1 Sills v. Brown, 9 C. & P. 601, 38 E. C. L. 
 
 1 See, also, Wasmer v. D., L. & W. E. E., 80 N. Y. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. E. 
 E. Cas. 122 ; Thirteenth & Fifteenth St. P. Ey. v. Boudrou, 92 Penna. St. 475 : 
 Hatfield v. C, E. I. & P. Ey., 61 Iowa 434, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 153; 
 L. & M. M. E. E. v. Montgomery, 7 Ind. 474. 
 
 8 16 C. B. 196, 81 E. C. L.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN GENERAL. 49 
 
 action is grounded not upon a pure tort, but upon a 
 tort which is also a breach of a contract to carry safely. 
 The judgment in the cause, however, turned upon the 
 point that, at the trial, the defence had been advisedly 
 put, not upon any theory of contributory negligence, but 
 upon the fact of the plaintiff's negligence being the 
 sole cause of his injury, and that the jury, upon evi- 
 dence satisfactory to them and to the judge, had deter- 
 mined that issue adversely to the defendant. The doubt 
 suggested in that case does not appear to be supported 
 by other authority. 
 
 Tliat duty of ordinary care upon the part of the person injured, whose 
 nonperformance is contributory negligence, is not tmvarying, but 
 is dependent upon tJie circumstances of the particular case. 
 
 50. Contributory negligence upon the part of the 
 person injured, or upon the part of any one whose 
 negligence is attributable to him, cannot become a ma- 
 terial issue in the cause unless negligence upon the 
 part of the railway be either proven or conceded. The 
 duty of ordinary care upon the part of the person 
 injured for his own safety is not unvarying, but is 
 dependent upon the circumstances of the particular 
 case, and also upon the mental and physical capacity of 
 the person injured. Thus, the person injured is to be 
 held to the exercise of a lower degree of care, when, by 
 negligence upon the part of the railway, his vigilance 
 has been put to sleep and he has been lulled into a con- 
 dition of security, as, for instance, when the railway 
 has, by leaving open a gate at a crossing, intimated that 
 the line may be safely crossed ; or, when the railway 
 has, by the mode of construction and location of its 
 stations or cars, impliedly warranted the safety of a pas- 
 senger in some particular place in its stations or cars ', 
 or, when a railway servant has invited a passenger tc 
 4
 
 50 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN GENERAL. 
 
 occupy a particular position under an express or im- 
 plied representation that he may safely occupy thai 
 position. It is not contributory negligence in the 
 person injured, if, under circumstances of imminent 
 danger, when there is no time for reflection, he fail to 
 act in the exercise of a cool and deliberate judgment. 1 
 
 51. Neither the moral quality of the plaintiff's act, 
 nor its motive, however admirable, can, if that act be a 
 proximate cause of his injury, relieve him from the 
 legal consequences of contributory negligence. 2 
 
 52. Nor does the belief of a contributorily negligent 
 plaintiff, however reasonable, that he will not be injured 
 by the negligent act, avail to relieve him from its legal 
 consequences. 3 
 
 53. Where the contributory negligence of the person 
 injured is dependent upon his knowledge of the exist- 
 ence of a met, he, if not physically or mentally inca- 
 pacitated, must be assumed to have had that knowledge, 
 if he had such opportunity of knowing the fact as 
 would have made it known to a person of average ca- 
 pacity exercising ordinary care for his own safety. 4 
 
 Contributory negligence upon the part of the person injured will not 
 avail as a defence to the wrongdoer in the case of an injury wilfully 
 inflicted. 
 
 54. When the injury has been wilfully inflicted, con- 
 tributory negligence upon the part of the sufferer is 
 obviously not available as a defence to the wrongdoer. 5 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Werner, 89 Penna. St. 59; Schall v. Cole, 107 Id 1 ; Mark v. 
 St. P., M. & M. Ry., 30 Minn. 493, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 86. 
 
 2 E. & C. R. R. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102 ; sed cf. Eckert v. L. I. R. R., 43 N. Y. 
 503. 
 
 3 Huldowney v. I. C. Ry., 36 Iowa 462. 
 
 4 P. R. R. v. Henderson, 43 Penna. St. 449. 
 
 5 Brownell v. Flagler, 5 Hill 282 ; T. R. R. v. Hunger, 5 Denio 267 ; Sand- 
 ford v. 8th Ave. R. R., 23 N. Y. 343 ; Steinmetz v. Kelly, 72 Ind. 442 ; L. & N. 
 R. R v. Collins, 2 Durall 114.
 
 THE EULE IN DAVIES V. MANN. 51 
 
 II. THE EULE IN DAVIES V. MANN. 
 
 Although negligence upon the part of the plaintiff may have in fact 
 contributed to his injury, the railway will nevertheless be liable, if 
 its servants could by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided the 
 injury to the plaintiff. 
 
 55. This qualification of the general rule was first 
 enunciated in Davies v. Mann, 1 where the plaintiff 
 having fettered the front les;s of his donkev had turned 
 him out into the public highway to graze, and while 
 there the defendant, driving recklessly, ran over the 
 donkey, and a verdict having been obtained by the 
 plaintiff, a rule for a new trial was refused : Abinger, 
 C B., saying, " as the defendant might, by proper care, 
 have avoided injuring the animal, and did not, he is 
 liable for the consequences of his negligence, though 
 the animal may have been improperly there ;" and 
 Parke, B., after referring to Butterfield v. Forrester, and 
 Bridge v. G. J. Ry., as authorities sustaining the plain- 
 tiff, adding, " although the ass may have been wrong- 
 fully there, still the defendant was bound to go along 
 the road at such a pace as would be likely to prevent 
 mischief. Were this not so, a man might justify driving 
 over goods left on a public highway, or even over a man 
 lying asleep there, or the purposely running against a 
 carriage going on the wrong side of the road." In 
 Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, 2 Denman, C. J., cites 
 Davies v. Mann as authority for the proposition, that, 
 " as a general rule of law, every one, in the conduct of 
 that which may be harmful to others, if misconducted, 
 is bound to the use of due care and skill ; and the 
 wrongdoer is not without the pale of the law for this 
 purpose ;" and in Dimes v. Petley, 3 Campbell, C. J., 
 
 1 10 M. & W. -346. ! 7Q.B. 339, 377, 53 E. C. L. 
 
 3 15 Q. B. 276, 233, 69 E. C. L.
 
 52 THE RULE IN DAVIES V. MANN. 
 
 takes the same view of that case. In Dowell v. Navi- 
 gation Co., 1 Campbell, C. J., said, " in a court of com- 
 mon law the plaintiff has no remedy, if his negligence 
 in any degree contributed to the accident. In some cases 
 there may have been negligence on the part of a plain- 
 tiff remotely connected with the accident ; and, in these 
 cases, the question arises whether the defendant by the 
 exercise of ordinary care and skill might have avoided 
 the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of the 
 plaintiff, as in the often quoted donkey case : Davies v. 
 Mann. There, although without the negligence of the 
 plaintiff the accident could not have happened, the 
 negligence is not supposed to have contributed to the 
 accident within the rule upon this subject ; and, if the 
 accident might have been avoided by the exercise of 
 ordinary care and skill on the part of the defendant, 
 to his gross negligence it is entirely ascribed, he and he 
 only proximately causing the loss." In Tuff v. War- 
 man,- Wightman, J., refers to the cases which I have 
 cited, and says, " mere negligence or want of ordinary 
 care or caution would not, however, disentitle him (the 
 plaintiff) to recover, unless it were such, that, but for 
 that negligence or want of ordinary care and caution, 
 the misfortune could not have happened ; nor, if the 
 defendant might, by the exercise of care on his part, 
 have avoided the consequences of the neglect or care- 
 lessness of the plaintiff." In Witherly v. Regents Canal 
 Co., 3 Byles, J., treats the rule in Davies v. Mann as 
 equivalent to a declaration that the plaintiff's contribu- 
 tory negligence must, in order to bar his recovery, have 
 been a proximate cause of the injury. 
 
 56. The latest exposition of this doctrine in England 
 
 * 5 E. & B. 195, 206, 85 E. C. L. a 5 C. B. N. S. 573, 94 E. C. L. 
 
 12 C. B. N. S. 2, 104 E. C. L.
 
 THE RULE IN DA VIES V. MANN. 53 
 
 is to be found in the case of Radley v. L. & N. W. Ry., 1 
 where the plaintiff being a colliery owner, upon whose 
 premises there was a siding connected with the defend- 
 ant's line and over that siding a bridge eight feet high, 
 the defendant on a Saturday afternoon, after the plain- 
 tiff's servants had left work, ran upon the siding some 
 trucks, one of which had a broken truck piled upon it 
 to the height of eleven feet. On Sunday evening the 
 defendant brought other empty trucks on the siding, 
 and pushing them forward the truck on which was piled 
 the broken truck struck the bridge and broke it down. 
 The plaintiff brought his action to recover for the loss 
 of the bridge. The defence was contributory negligence 
 on the part of the plaintiff in permitting the trucks to 
 remain on the siding from Saturday afternoon until 
 Sunday evening. At the trial Brett, J., directed the 
 jury in the following terms : " the plaintiff must have 
 satisfied you that this happened by the negligence of 
 the defendants' servants, and without any contributory 
 negligence of their own. In other words, that it was 
 solely by the negligence of the defendants' servants. 
 If you think it was, then your verdict will be for the 
 plaintiff; if you think it was not solely by the negli- 
 gence ol the defendants' servants, your verdict must be 
 for the defendants." The jury found for the defend- 
 ants, and the Exchequer of Pleas made absolute a rule 
 for a new trial, upon the ground of misdirection. The 
 Exchequer Chamber reversed and entered judgment for 
 the defendant, but the House of Lords reversed the 
 Exchequer Chamber and reinstated the judgment of 
 the Exchequer of Pleas making absolute the rule for 
 a new trial, Lord Penzance saying : " The law in these 
 cases of negligence is perfectly settled and beyond dis- 
 pute. The first proposition is a general one, to this 
 
 1 L. R. 9 Ex. 91, 10 Id. 100, 1 App. Cas. 754.
 
 54 TUE EULE IN DA VIES V. MANN. 
 
 effect, that tlie plaintiff in an action for negligence 
 cannot succeed if it is found by the jury that he has 
 himself been guilty of any negligence or want of or- 
 dinary care which contributes to cause the accident. 
 But there is another proposition equally well established, 
 and it is a qualification upon the first, namely, that 
 though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence, 
 and although that negligence may, in fact, have con- 
 tributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could in 
 the result, by the exercise of ordinary care and dili- 
 gence, have avoided the mischief which happened, the 
 plaintiff's negligence will not excuse him. This propo- 
 sition, as one of law, cannot be questioned." The case 
 of Davies v. Mann has been followed in many other 
 cases. 1 
 
 57. The rule is sometimes stated that the plaintiff, 
 
 1 Eadley v. L. & N.W. Ey., L. E. 9 Ex. 01, 10 Id. 100, 1 App. Cas. 754; 
 Dowell v.'G. S. Nav. Co., 5E.&B. 195, 85 E. C. L.; Witherly v. Regents 
 Canal Co., 12 C. B. N. S. 2, 104 E. C. L. ; Tuff v. Warraan, 5 C. B. N. S. 573, 
 91 E. C. L. ; Morrisey v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 43 Mo. 380; Hulseneamp v. C. 
 E. E., 37 Id. 537 ; Kennedy v. N. M. E. E,, 36 Id. 351 ; Boland v. Missouri 
 E. E., Id. 484; Meyer v. Pacific E. E., 40 Id. 15:5; Liddy v. St. Louis E. E., 
 Id. 506 ; Scott v. D. & W. Ey., 11 Irish Com. Law 377 ; C. & A. E. E. v. 
 Gretzner, 46 111. 76 ; C. & A. E. E. v. Pondrum, 51 Id. 333 ; K. C. Ey. v. Dills, 
 
 4 Bush 593 ; L. & C. Ey. v. Siekings, 5 Id. 1 ; M. & W. E. E. v. Davis, IS Ga. 
 679 ; 19 Id. 437; M. & W. E. E. r.Winn, Id. 440; Eaisin v. Mitchell, 9 C. & 
 P. 613, 38 E C. L.; Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B. 339, 378, 53 E. 
 C. L. ; Clayards v. Dethick, 12 Q. B. 439, 64 E. C. L. ; Thompson v. N. E. Ey., 
 2 B. & S. 106, 110 E. C. L. ; Wyatt v. G. W. Ey., 6 B. & S. 709, 118 E. C. L. ; 
 Ishell v. N. Y. & N. II. E. E., 27 Conn. 393 ; Meeks r. S. P. E. E., 56 Cal. 513, 
 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 314; Needham v. S. F. & S. J. E. E., 37 Cal. 409; 
 C. C. E. E. v. Holmes, 5 Colo. 197, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 410; The State 
 v. B. & O. E. E., 24 Md. 84 ; Trow v. V. C. Ey., 24 Vt. 487 ; N. H. S. & T. Co. 
 v. Yanderhilt, 16 Conn. 421 ; Kerwhacker v. C., C, C. & I. Ey., 3 Ohio St. 172 ; 
 Burnett v. B. & M. E. E., 16 Neb. 332, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 25; M. C. 
 E. E. v. Neubeur", 62 Md. 391, 19 Am. & Eng. E E. Cas. 261 ; Kean v. B. & 
 ( •. R. E., 61 Md. 154, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 321 ; Johnson v. H. E. E. E., 
 
 5 Doer 27 ; Button v. II. E. E. E., 18 N. Y. 248; B. & O. E. E. v. The State, 
 .".:; Ml. 542; L. C. & L. E. E. v. Mahony, 7 Bush (Ky.) 235; L. & N. E. E. 
 r. FUbern, 6 Id. 574; Thayer v. St. L., A. & T. II. E^., 22 Ind. 26; C. St. 
 Ely. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 3C.
 
 THE RULE IN DAVIES V. MANN. 55 
 
 though contributory negligent, can recover if the rail- 
 way's servants, after becoming aware of the dangerous 
 position into which the plaintiff, by his contributory 
 negligence, had brought himself, could have avoided 
 the injury to him by the exercise of due care on their 
 part, and failed to exercise that due care. 1 
 
 58. The rule in Davies v. Mann has been misunder- 
 stood and misapplied. It means only that that negli- 
 gence upon the part of the plaintiff which bars his 
 recovery from the defendant 'must have been a proxi- 
 mate cause of the injury, and that it is not a proximate, 
 but only a remote, cause of the injury, when the de- 
 fendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence, 
 might, by the exercise of ordinary care and skill, have 
 avoided the doing of the injury. Thus stated, the rule 
 is consistent with the theory upon which the doctrine 
 of contributory negligence is based, and furnishes no 
 support for that of comparative negligence. 
 
 59. The rule in Davies v. Mann has not been followed 
 in Pennsylvania. In Reeves v. D., L. & W. R. R., 2 
 where the plaintiff sued to recover for cattle killed at a 
 highway crossing, judgment on a verdict for the de- 
 fendant was reversed for misdirection in failing to 
 charge the jury, " that if the injury result from the 
 want of care of both parties, neither has remedy against 
 the other ; but if it be not in any degree ascribable to 
 the negligence of one party, due regard being had to all 
 the circumstances of his position, he may have redress 
 from the other." In Stiles v. Geesey, 3 the plaintiff's 
 wagon and horses, while hitched to a tree on a highway 
 
 1 Nelson v. A. & P. R. R., 68 Mo. 593 ; Price v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 72 
 Mo. 414, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 3G5 ; Isabel v. II. & St. J. R. R., 60 Mo. 
 482 ; Harlan v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 65 Mo. 22 ; Scoville v. II. & St. J. R. 
 R., 81 Mo. 434, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 534; Zimmerman v. II. & St. J. R. 
 R., 71 Mo. 476, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 191. 
 
 2 30 Penna. St. 454. 3 71 Penna. St. 439.
 
 5Q THE RULE IN DAVIES V. MANN. 
 
 and unattended, were struck and injured by the de- 
 fendant's wagon drawn by horses, the defendant's ser- 
 vant walking at some distance from the team and not 
 guiding them. Judgment on a verdict for the plain- 
 tiff was reversed in error, for misdirection in instructing 
 the jury, that if they found that the defendant had 
 been negligent in failing to guide his team it constituted 
 no defence to him that the plaintiff did not exercise 
 ordinary care in leaving his property where it was. In 
 Creed v. P. R. R., 1 where the plaintiff sued to recover 
 for injuries resulting from the derailment of the train 
 in which he was riding, and the defence was based on 
 the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in riding in 
 what was claimed to be a position of danger, the court 
 having left to the jury the questions of negligence and 
 contributory negligence, and a verdict having passed 
 for the plaintiff, judgment non obstante veredicto was 
 entered for the defendant, upon the ground that the 
 plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and that judg- 
 ment was reversed in error, Gordon, J., saying : " The 
 test for contributory negligence is found in the affirma- 
 tive of the question ' Does that negligence contribute in 
 any degree to the production of the injury complained 
 of?' If it does, there can be no recovery ; if it does 
 not, it is not to be considered." 2 It is obvious that 
 these cases are not reconcilable with Davies v. Mann, 
 and the many cases which have followed in its lead. 
 
 1 8G Penna. St. 139. 
 
 2 See, also, L. S. N. R. R. v. Norton, 24 Penna. St. 465 ; Heil v. Glanding, 
 42 Id. 493 • C. R. R. v Armstrong, 49 Id. 193.
 
 THE BOUDROU CASE. 57 
 
 HI. THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE IN 13TH AND 15TH STS. 
 P. RY. V. BOUDROU. 
 
 60. It is said, in some of the authorities, that the 
 plaintiff's negligence should have been a concurring 
 cause, and not merely a condition, of the plaintiff's in- 
 jury. Of course, there is an obvious distinction between 
 the cause, that is, that which produces the injury, and 
 those conditions or incidents which are the accidental, 
 but not necessary, concomitants of the injury, and, there- 
 fore, that negligence upon the part of the plaintiff, 
 which can be accurately characterized as a condition of 
 the injury, is not in any proper sense contributory neg- 
 ligence, because it does not contribute to the injury. 
 There is, however, a Pennsylvania case, in which this 
 distinction seems to have been carried to a dangerous 
 extent. In 13th and 15th Sts. P. Ky. v. Boudrou, 1 the 
 plaintiff, having become a passenger at night upon a 
 street car which was so crowded that he could not obtain 
 a seat, stood upon the back platform, and while there 
 was injured by being struck by the pole of another car 
 of the same line which, following the car upon which the 
 plaintiff was riding, came into collision with that car by 
 reason of the breaking of the brake chain. At the 
 trial, the judge directed the jury that the danger of a 
 collision between the car upon which the passenger was 
 riding and another car following it was not one of the 
 dangers which render it perilous to ride upon the rear 
 platform, and that, therefore, if the jury should find the 
 plaintiff negligent in standing upon the rear platform, 
 and yet find that the collision could not have happened 
 but for the negligence of the driver of the following car, 
 the plaintiff's negligence was to be considered too re- 
 mote to constitute a cause of the injury, and therefore 
 
 1 92 Penna. St. 475.
 
 58 THE BOUDEOU CASE. 
 
 could not bar his recovery. The judge also declined to 
 direct the jury that, if they should find from the evi- 
 dence that the plaintiff occupied the back platform of 
 the car on which he received his injury for the purpose 
 of being carried as a passenger, he was guilty of con- 
 tributory negligence. Judgment upon a verdict for the 
 plaintiff was affirmed in error, Trunkey, J., in deliver- 
 ing the judgment of the Supreme Court, saying : " The 
 large number of passengers in this city who voluntarily 
 stand upon the platforms, because there is neither sitting 
 nor standing room in the cars, do not, and ought not to, 
 anticipate that they will be run over by following cars. 
 Their position has no tendency to induce the driving of 
 one car into another. Whatever the degree of their 
 negligence in riding on the platform, and the ritks they 
 take in so doing, every one knows that so long as he re- 
 mains there, he is in no danger of being run down by a 
 car, unless from its heedless handling. When the 
 plaintiff was struck, his post was a condition, but not a 
 cause, of the injury. It neither lessened the speed of 
 the car he was on nor increased that of the other ; his 
 presence was not a cause of the broken chain and reck- 
 less driving of car 14; his place was an incident of an 
 over-crow T ded car, where the conductor had left the plat- 
 form to give him standing room, and had not pointed 
 him to a seat or requested him to enter the car." Shars- 
 wood, C. J., and Paxson, J., dissented, holding that the 
 question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence should 
 have been submitted to the jury. The dissenting judg- 
 ment of Paxson, J., is reported in 8 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases 244. This case stands alone, for in all the other 
 cases dealing with the question of the plaintiff's con- 
 tributory negligence in standing upon the platform of a 
 street car, it is held that the effect of the act is, at least, 
 a question for the jury. The dangerous extent of the
 
 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. 59 
 
 doctrine laid down in the judgment of the court is ob- 
 vious, for it can be said in every conceivable case that 
 the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was not a 
 cause of the defendant's negligence ; thus, when a driver 
 approaches a railway line at a highway crossing without 
 looking or listening for approaching trains, and on the 
 crossing is run down by an engine whose driver has 
 given no warning of its coming, his contributory negli- 
 gence in failing to take that precaution, the taking of 
 which is generally held to be an indispensable prerequi- 
 site to his recovery of damages, is, if the judgment of the 
 Boudrou case be right, merely a condition and not a 
 cause of the injury, for his failure to look and listen 
 did not affect the speed of the approaching train, nor 
 was it the cause of the engine driver's failure to give 
 due warning of the approach of his train to the cross- 
 ing. Precisely the same reasoning can be applied to 
 every possible case of contributory negligence. If the 
 judgment in the Boudrou case is to stand unreversed, 
 there is in Pennsylvania, at least, an end of the doctrine 
 of contributory negligence. 
 
 IV. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 In Illinois, Georgia, and Tennessee, a contributorily negligent plain/ 
 tiff is, under certain conditions, held to be entitled to recover damages 
 against a railway. 
 
 61. The doctrine of comparative negligence is admin- 
 istered to its full extent in Illinois, and to a modified 
 extent in Georgia and Tennessee. In Illinois the rule 
 is, that if the injured party omits some slight precaution 
 for his safety, and if the railway omits all care on its 
 part, or, in other words, if the plaintiff's negligence be 
 slight, and that of the railway when compared with that
 
 60 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 of the plaintiff be gross, a recovery can nevertheless be 
 had. 1 
 
 62. In Georgia the rule, as deducible from the cases, 
 appears to be that if the contributory negligence on the 
 part of the plaintiff has been gross he cannot recover, 
 but that if his contributory negligence has been slight, 
 as compared with the negligence on the part of the de- 
 fendant, the latter is to be held liable, but the jury are 
 then to take that contributory negligence into consider- 
 ation in mitigation of the damages recoverable from the 
 defendant. 2 
 
 63. The rule in Tennessee is, as stated by Mr. Charles 
 Fiske Beach, Jr., in his valuable treatise upon Contribu- 
 tory Negligence, substantially the same as that which 
 prevails in Georgia. 3 
 
 64. There are many cases in which the theory of 
 comparative negligence has been disapproved. 4 Nor is 
 the rule in itself reasonable or defensible upon principle. 
 Where the plaintiff's want of care has been a proximate 
 cause of his injury, the defendant cannot, under any 
 
 1 W. St. L. & P. Ry. v. Wallace, 110 111. 114, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 359 ; L. N. A. & C. Ry. v. Shires, 108 111. G17, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 387 
 C. B. & Q. R. R. v. Van Patten, 74 111. 91 ; I. C. R. R. v. Patterson, 93 Id. 290 
 G. & C. U. R. R. v. Jacobs, 20 Id. 478 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Sweeny, 52 Id. 3o0 
 R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. v. Delaney, 82 Id. 198. 
 
 2 A. & R. A. L R. R. v. Ayers, 53 Ga. 12; C. R. R. v. Gleason, 69 Id. 200; 
 A. & S. R. R. v. McElmurry, 24 Id. 75 ; A. & W. P. R. R. v. Wyly, 65 Id. 120 ; 
 Thompson v. C. R. R., 54 Id. 509 ; Campbell v. A. R. R., 53 Id. 488 ; Hen- 
 dricks v. W. & A. R. R., 52 Id. 467 ; M. & W. R. R. v. Davis, 27 Id. 113. 
 
 3 Beach on Contributory Negligence, p. 97 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Carroll, 6 
 Heisk. 347 ; R. R. v. Walker, 11 Heisk. 383 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Flemming. 14 
 Lea (Tenn.) 128 ; 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 347. 
 
 4 L. S. N. R. R. v. Norton, 24 Penna. St. 465 ; Heil v. Glanding, 42 Id. 493 ; 
 Reeves v. D. L. & W. R. R., 30 Id. 464; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Id. 439 ; C. R. R. 
 v. Armstrong, 49 Id. 193 ; W T ilds v. H. R. R., 24 N. Y. 432 ; Penna. Co. v. 
 Roney, 89 Ind. 453 ; O'Keefe v. C. R. I. & P. R. R., 32 Iowa 467 ; P. R. R. v. 
 Righter, 42 N. J. Law 180; Gothard v. A. G. S. R. R., 67 Ala. 114; Potter v. 
 C. & N. W. Ry., 21 Wise. 372; Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44; H. & T. C. R. 
 R. v. Gorbett, 49 Tex. 573 ; K. P. Ry. v. Peavey, 29 Kans. 170, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 260.
 
 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. 61 
 
 possible theory of duty or implied contract, be called 
 upon to indemnify him for that injury. To permit the 
 plaintiff's recovery under such circumstances is to de- 
 cide that he may hold the defendant responsible for his 
 non-performance of his duty to himself, and such a con- 
 clusion is not reconcilable with the theory upon which 
 the general doctrine of negligence is based. The practi- 
 cal difficulty in the administration of the doctrine of 
 comparative negligence is great. It is not easy for 
 trained judges, and it is always difficult for untrained 
 jurymen, to determine by comparison, in cases where 
 both plaintiff and defendant have by negligence con- 
 tributed to the injury, whose negligence exceeds that of 
 the other. As Woodward, J., said in L. S. N. E. R. v. 
 Norton, 1 "the law has no scales to determine in such 
 cases whose wrong doing weighed most in the compound 
 that occasioned the mischief," and the result of the ap- 
 plication of the rule in almost all causes, wherein indi- 
 viduals are plaintiffs and railways are defendants, is that 
 the jury must pass upon the question of contributory 
 negligence, for however clearly it might be proven that 
 the plaintiff had failed to observe that care which a due 
 regard to his own interests required of him, it would be 
 for the jury to say whether or not the railway's negli- 
 gence was gross as compared with that of the plaintiff, 
 and in every such case the jury would find for the 
 plaintiff. 
 
 1 24 Penna. St. 469.
 
 62 NEGLIGENCE IN AVOIDING DANGERS, ETC. 
 
 V. NEGLIGENCE IN AVOIDING DANGERS OR INCONVENI- 
 ENCES. 
 
 A person w not chargeable with contributory negligence who is injured 
 in the effort to escape from an imminent peril to which he has been 
 exposed by the negligence of the railway; nor is a person chargeable 
 therewith who is injured in the attempt to obviate, by an act not 
 essentially dangerous, an inconvenience to him caused by the negli- 
 gence of the raihoay. 
 
 65. I have given my reasons for the opinion that the 
 real question in cases of injuries incurred in flying 
 from a danger, or in attempting to obviate some incon- 
 venience caused by negligence or breach of contract on 
 the part of the railway, is, whether or not the negli- 
 gence on the part of the railway is the proximate cause 
 of the plaintiff's injury, rather than whether or not the 
 plaintiff is contributorily negligent; but in many of the 
 cases the question is treated as one of contributory neg- 
 ligence, and it is generally held that a person is not 
 chargeable with contributory negligence who is injured 
 in the effort to escape from an imminent peril to which 
 he has been exposed by negligence on the part of the 
 railway. 1 Nor is it contributory negligence if the 
 plaintiff has been injured in the effort to avoid an in- 
 convenience by an act " not obviously dangerous, and 
 
 1 Jones v. Boyce, 1 Starkie 493, 2 E. C. L.; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 
 181 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Erwin, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 465 ; Caswell v. B. & 
 W. R. R., 98 Mass. 194 ; E T. V. & G. R. R. v. Gurley, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 46, 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 568 ; C. R. R. v. Rhodes, 56 Ga 645 ; C. R. R. v. 
 Roach, 64 Id. 635, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79 ; P. B. & W. R. R v. Rohr- 
 man, 13 Weekly Notes of Cases 258, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 ; Smith v. 
 St. P., M. & M. Ry., 30 Minn. 169, 9 Am & Eng R. R. Cas. 262; Iron R. R. 
 v. Mowerv, 36 Ohio St. 418, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas 361 ; Buel v. N. Y. C. 
 R. R , 31 N. Y. 314 ; S. W. R. R. v. Paulk 24 Ga. 356 ; Twomley v. C. P., N. 
 & E. R R P.. 69 N. Y. 158 ; Mark v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 30 Minn. 493, 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 86.
 
 NEGLIGENCE IN AVOIDING DANGEKS, ETC. 63 
 
 executed without carelessness." 1 On the other hand, 
 it is contributory negligence, if, in the attempt to avoid 
 that which is merely inconvenient and in no sense dan- 
 gerous, the person injured encounters a danger obvi- 
 ously apparent to the minds of reasonable men. 2 
 
 66. Two Pennsylvania cases seem to be open to 
 criticism. In Johnson v. W. C. & P. R. K., 3 by ar- 
 rangement two railway companies, whose lines met at a 
 junction, sold tickets over each other's line. A pas- 
 senger by one of the lines, having arrived at the junc- 
 tion just as the connecting train was leaving, attempted, 
 although he was carrying luggage in both arms, to 
 board that train after it was in motion, and in the 
 effort was thrown down and injured. Judgment on a 
 verdict for the defendant was reversed in error, because 
 the judge at the trial directed the jury that, "if the 
 train was distinctly running upon the track when the 
 plaintiff attempted to enter, he was guilty of negligence, 
 and cannot recover," the Supreme Court holding that it 
 should have been left to the jury to say, under all the cir- 
 cumstances in evidence, whether the danger of boarding 
 the train, when in motion, was so apparent as to have 
 made it the duty of the plaintiff to desist from the 
 attempt. In W. P. P. Ry. v. Whipple, 4 a female pas- 
 senger got into a crowded street car and voluntarily 
 
 1 Gee v. Metropolitan Ky., L. E. 8 Q. B. 161 ; Clayards v. Dethick, 12 Q. B. 
 439, 64 E. C. L. ; Wyatt v. G. W. By., 6 B. & S. 709, 118 E. C. L.; the judg- 
 ment of Kelly, C. B., in Siner v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 150 ; Johnson v. W. 
 C. & P. R. R., 70 Penna. St. 357 ; W. P. P. Ry. v. Whipple, 5 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases 68. 
 
 * Adams v. L. & Y. Ry., L. R. 4 C. P. 739 ; Siner v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 
 150. 4 Id. 117 ; G. H. & S. A. R. R. r. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189 ; Damont v. N. 
 O. & C. R. R., 9 La. An. 441 ; I. C. R. R. v. Able, 59 111. 131 ; Gavett v. M. & 
 L. R. R., 16 Gray 501 ; J. R. R. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228 ; Judgment of 
 Bramwell, L. J., in Lax v. Darlington, 5 Ex. D. 28 ; P. R. R. v. Aspell, 23 
 J'enna. St. 147. 
 
 s 70 Penna. St. 357. 
 
 4 5 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 68.
 
 64 NON-PERFORMANCE OF STATUTORY DUTY. 
 
 stood, without taking hold of the straps hanging from 
 the roof of the car, which were within her reach, and 
 which were placed for the support of standing passen- 
 gers. She alone, of all the passengers in the car, was 
 thrown down by the jolt of a sudden stop, and, in 
 cross-examination, she excused her failure to take the 
 strap because her dress was so tightly laced that she 
 could not raise her arm. She admitted that, except 
 for her stays, she could have held the strap, and that 
 she could put her fingers partly through it, and that 
 the reason why she did not hold the strap was that it 
 would have disarranged her dress. The judge, at the 
 trial, directed the jury that the plaintiff was not disenti- 
 tled to recover by reason of her failure to avail herself of 
 the support which the straps would have afforded her, 
 if she could not " conveniently" reach them, and upon 
 a bill of exceptions to that direction judgment upon a 
 verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed in error. In 
 Johnson's case there was really no question for the 
 jury, for the plaintiff's own testimony showed that, 
 while encumbered with the luggage he was carrying, 
 he attempted to board a moving train ; and in Whip- 
 ple's case there was an obvious misdirection in permit- 
 ting the jury to consider the possibility of inconvenience 
 to the plaintiff in the disarrangement of her dress, as an 
 adequate excuse for her voluntarily incurring the risk 
 of standing without support in a moving car. 
 
 VI. NON-PERFORMANCE OF STATUTORY DUTY. 
 
 The failure of the person, injured to perform a collateral statutory duty 
 ought not to be treated as contributory negligence. 
 
 67. The fact that the person injured was, at the time 
 of the injury, acting in disobedience to a collateral 
 statutory duty, ought not to be held to be such con-
 
 NON-PERFORMANCE OF STATUTORY DUTY. 65 
 
 tributary negligence as bars his recovery. Thus, it 
 has been held that disobedience to the laws, which, in 
 some States, require the observance of Sunday as a day 
 of rest and abstinence from worldly business, will not 
 prevent a plaintiff, who is injured while transacting 
 business on Sunday, from recovering from a defendant 
 whose negligence has caused the injury. 1 The contrary 
 doctrine is, however, asserted in many cases. 2 
 
 68. The extent to which the doctrine of these cases 
 can be carried is illustrated in some of the cases. In 
 the Massachusetts case, a telegraph company had failed 
 to obtain from the municipal authorities of Boston the 
 written evidence of permission to construct a telegraph 
 line in that city, and one of the telegraph companies' 
 servants, while engaged in climbing a pole and carrying 
 a wire, was injured by a passenger car running against 
 the wire, and, after verdict for the plaintiff, the defend- 
 ant's exceptions were sustained, on the ground that the 
 jury should have been instructed that the plaintiff was 
 doing an illegal act, which contributed to his injury, 
 and that he could recover for nothing less than wanton 
 injury. In the Georgia case, the plaintiff, a servant of 
 the railway, was injured while engaged in the perform- 
 
 1 Mohney v. Cook, 26 Penna. St. 342 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Tow-boat Co., 23 
 How. 209 ; Carroll v. S. J. Co., 58 N. Y. 126 ; McArthur v. Green Bay Co., 34 
 Wise. 139; Sawyer v. Oakman, 7 Match. C. C. 290; Schmid v. Humphrey, 48 
 Iowa 652; Morris v. Lichfield, 35 N. H 271; Bigelow v. Reed, 51 Me. 325; 
 Hamilton v. Godding, 55 Id. 428 ; Baker v. Portland, 58 Id. 199 ; Kerwhacker 
 v. C. C & C. Ry., 3 Ohio St 172; Knowlton v. M. C. R. R., 59 Wise. 278, 16 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 330; Baker i». Portland, 58 Me. 199. 
 
 2 Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Mete. 363; Stanton v. Metropolitan R. R., 14 
 Allen 485 ; Smith v. B. & M. R. R. 120 Mass. 490 ; Lyons v. Desotelle, 124 Id. 
 387 ; Bucher v. Fitchburg R. R., 131 Id. 156, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 212; 
 McGrath v. Merwin, 112 Id. 467 ; Pay v. Highland St. Ry., 135 Id. 113, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 150 ; Banks v. H. St. Ry., 136 Mass. 485, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 139; Wallace v. Cannon, 38 Ga. 199. 
 
 The Massachusetts Statute of 1877, c. 232, provides that the statutes "pro- 
 hibiting travelling on the Lord's Day," shall not be available to railways as a 
 defence in actions for personal injuries. 
 5
 
 GG CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF CHILDREN, ETC. 
 
 ance of his duty to the railway, upon a train which was 
 carrying troops and munitions of war for the Confed- 
 erate government, and it was held that his violation, in 
 that respect, of his duty as a citizen to the government 
 of the United States barred his recovery. So, in Martin 
 v. Wallace, 1 and in Turner v. N. C. R. R., 2 it was held 
 that soldiers in the Confederate service who were injured 
 while travelling by railway in the performance of mili- 
 tary duty could not recover from the railways for 
 injuries caused by their negligence. 
 
 69. The right doctrine is, that that violation of public 
 or private duty which is collateral to the injury cannot 
 be in law regarded as an efficient cause of the injury, 
 and for that reason cannot be considered as contributory 
 negligence. Tried by this test, the cases referred to in 
 the last section were wrongly decided. 
 
 VII. LUNATICS, IDIOTS, AND CHILDREN. 
 
 Lunatics, idiots, and children are to be held only to the exercise of that 
 degree of care and discretion which ought reasonably to be expected 
 of persons of their age and capacity. 
 
 70. A higher degree of care is to be required of per- 
 sons of mature years than of infants, and of persons in 
 the full possession of their faculties than of those of in- 
 ferior mental or physical efficiency. Lunatics, idiots, 
 and children are only to be held to the exercise of that 
 degree of care and discretion which ought reasonably to 
 be expected in such persons, having regard to the age and 
 mental condition of the individual and the circumstances 
 of the particular case. Thus in Lynch v. Nurdin. 3 the 
 defendant's servant having negligently left a cart and 
 horse standing unattended in a highway, a child, while 
 climbing into the cart, was thrown down and injured 
 
 1 40 Ga. 52. J 63 N. C. 522. 3 1 Q. E. 29, 41 E. C. L.
 
 CONTEIBUTOEY NEGLIGENCE OF CHILDEEN, ETC. 67 
 
 by the movement of the cart, another child having 
 started the horse. After verdict for the plaintiff, a rule 
 for a new trial was refused. Denman, C. J., said, " but 
 the question remains, can the plaintiff, then, consistently 
 with the authorities, maintain his action, having been at 
 least equally in fault ? The answer is that, supposing 
 that fact ascertained by the jury, but to this extent, 
 that he merely indulged the natural instinct of a child 
 in amusing himself with the empty cart and deserted 
 horse, then we think that the defendant cannot be per- 
 mitted to avail himself of that fact. The most blamable 
 carelessness of his servant having tempted the child, he 
 ought not to reproach the child with yielding to that 
 temptation. He has been the real and only cause of the 
 mischief. He has been deficient in ordinary care. The 
 child, acting without prudence or thought, has, however, 
 shown these qualities in as great a degree as he could 
 be expected to possess them. His misconduct bears no 
 proportion to that of the defendant, which produced 
 it." In W. & G. By. v. Gladmon, 1 where a child of 
 seven years of age sued to recover for injuries resulting 
 from being run over by a railway car on a street, judg- 
 ment upon a verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed in 
 error, Hunt, J., saying, " the rule of law in regard to 
 the negligence of an adult, and the rule in regard to 
 that of an infant of tender years, is quite different. By 
 the adult there must be given that care and attention 
 for his own protection that is ordinarily exercised by 
 persons of intelligence and discretion. If he fails to 
 give it, his injury is the result of his own folly, and 
 cannot be visited upon another. Of an infant of tender 
 years less discretion is required, and the degree depends 
 upon his age and knowledge. Of a child of three years 
 of age less caution would be required than of one of 
 
 1 15 Wall. 401.
 
 68 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF CHILDREN, ETC. 
 
 seven, and of a child of seven less than one of twelve 
 or fifteen. The caution required is according to the 
 maturity and capacity of the child, and this is to be 
 determined in each case by the circumstances of that 
 case." In Rauch v. Lloyd, 1 the plaintiff, seven years of 
 age, in performing an errand, had safely crossed the 
 track of a railroad at a public crossing. On returning 
 he found the crossing blocked by the defendant's cars, 
 and while endeavoring to pass under one of them, the 
 cars started, and the plaintiff was run over and injured. 
 The judge at the trial instructed the jury in these 
 terms : " has or has not a boy who is capable of per- 
 forming an errand sufficient intelligence and discretion 
 to know the hazard of creeping under a train of cars 
 liable to be started at any moment ? And had or had 
 not the plaintiff such intelligence and discretion?" 
 Judgment having been entered on a verdict for the 
 defendant, was reversed in error. Woodward, J., in 
 delivering the judgment, said : " Children are to be held 
 responsible only for the discretion of children. * * * 
 If he had gone out of his way to place himself under 
 the cars, it might be accounted rashness, even in a 
 child; but pursuing the highway he may well have 
 supposed that the men who placed the cars there 
 expected him to pass under them. Considering his age 
 and all the circumstances of the case, we see nothing 
 that would justify the imputation of negligence or im- 
 prudence. He acted like a child, and he is not to be 
 judged as a man. * * * The strength of the plaintiff's 
 ease is that he had a right to pass along the highway, 
 and the defendants had no right to obstruct it. He 
 was in the exercise of a right, in a manner not unrea- 
 sonable or imprudent for a child, and they injured him 
 by reason of having stopped where they had no right 
 
 1 31 Penna. St. 358.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF INFANTS. 69 
 
 to stop." These cases are supported by many other 
 authorities. 1 
 
 71. It is, therefore, not contributory negligence in 
 an infant to fail to exercise that degree of care for 
 his own safety, which may reasonably be expected in an 
 adult of average capacity. On the same principle, it is 
 not contributory negligence in a paralytic to fail to run 
 away from an imminent danger, or in a blind man not 
 to see an approaching peril, or in a deaf man to fail to 
 hear a warning of danger, or in a foreigner who does 
 not understand the English language to fail to appreci- 
 ate and act upon a warning spoken in that tongue. 2 
 
 Tlie general rule is that it is for the jury to determine, under the cir- 
 cumstances of the particular case, what amount of reason and dis- 
 cretion ought to have been exercised by the injured infant. 
 
 72. Thus, in P. R. R. v. Kelly * the facts being 
 almost identical with those in Rauch v. Lloyd, the judge 
 at the trial instructed the jury to consider " whether 
 the injury might have been avoided by the exercise of 
 that care and discretion which was reasonably to be 
 looked for in a boy of his years," and the jury having 
 
 1 Rauch v. Lloyd, 31 Penna. St. 358 ; P. R. R. v. Kelly, Id. 372 ; Oakland 
 Ry. v. Fielding, 48 Id. 320; Smith v. O'Connor, Id. 218; H. M. & F. Ry. v. 
 Gray, 3 Weekly Notes of Cases 421 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Spearen, 47 Penna. St. 300 ; 
 Kay v. P. R. R., 65 Id. 209 ; P. C. P. Ry. v. Hassard, 75 Id. 367 ; Crissey v.H. 
 M. & F. Ry., Id. 83 ; Gray v. Scott, 66 Penna. St. 345 ; W. & G. Ry. v. Gladmon, 
 
 15 Wall. 401 ; Mangan v. B. C. R. R., 30 N. Y. 445 ; W. P. Ry. v. Gallagher, 
 
 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 413; Barry v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 
 N. Y. 289, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 615 ; Dowling v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R, 
 90 N. Y. 670, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. ( las. 73 ; Tliurber v. H. B. M. & F. R. R., 
 60 N. Y. 326 ; Reynolds v. X. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 58 N. Y. 248 ; Byrne v. N. 
 Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 83 N. Y. 620 ; O'Connor v. B. & L. R. R., 135 Mass. 352, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 302 ; MoMahon v. N. C. Ry., 39 Md. 438 ; Schmidt v. M. 
 & St. P. Ry., 23 Wise. 186 ; C.& A. R. R. v. Gregory, 58 111. 226 ; Boland v. M. 
 R. R., 36 Mo. 484 ; S. C. & P. R. R. v. Stout, 17 Wallace 657 ; EVuns v. B. & 
 A. R. R., 115 Mass. 190. 
 
 2 Walter v. C. D. & M. Ry., 39 Iowa 33. 
 » 31 Penna. St. 372.
 
 70 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF INFANTS. 
 
 found for the plaintiff, judgment on their verdict was 
 affirmed in error. 1 
 
 Where the injured person is confessedly of average capacity and an 
 infant only in legal theory, it ought not to be left to the jury to de- 
 termine what amount of discretion ought, under the circumstances 
 of the particular case, to have been exercised by the injured person. 
 
 73. The general rule, as stated in the preceding sec- 
 tion, is, tb&i it is for the jury to determine what amount 
 of reason and discretion ought, under the circumstances 
 >f the particular case, to have been exercised by the 
 Jijured infant, but, of course, this doctrine cannot rea- 
 sonably be applied in the cases of those who are infants 
 only in legal theory, as, for instance, those who are be- 
 tween fourteen and twenty-one years of age. In Nagle 
 v. A. V. R. R., 2 where there was affirmed in error a 
 judgment of nonsuit upon the ground of the contrib- 
 utory negligence of the plaintiff, a boy of between four- 
 teen and fifteen years of age, Paxson, J., in a carefully 
 reasoned judgment says : " the law fixes no arbitrary 
 period when the immunity of childhood ceases and the 
 responsibilities of life begin. For some purposes ma- 
 jority is the rule. It is not so here. It would be 
 irrational to hold that a man was responsible for his 
 negligence at twenty-one years of age, and not re- 
 sponsible a day or a week prior thereto. At what age 
 
 1 See also Johnson v. C. & N. W. Ey., 49 Wise. 529, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 155 ; Ewen v. C. & N. W. Ey., 38 Wise. 614 ; Townley v. C. M. & St. P. 
 Ey., 53 Wise. 626, 4 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 562 ; Evansich v. G. C. & S. F. 
 E. E., 57 Tex. 123, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 182, Vickers v. A. & W. P. E. E., 
 64 Ga. 306, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 337 ; M. & M. Ry. v. Crenshaw, 65 Ala. 
 666, 8 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 340 ; Johnson v. C. & N. W. Ey., 56 Wise. 274, 
 8 Arm & Eng. E. E. Cas. 471 ; Nagel v. M. P. Ey., 75 Mo. 653, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 702; P. & M. E. E. v. Hoehl, 12 Bush (Ky.) 41 ; Eeynolds v. N. Y. 
 C. & H. E. E. E., 58 N. Y. 248 ; Ihl v. F. S. St. E. E., 47 N. Y. 317 ; Mulligan v. 
 Curtis, 100 Mass. 512; O'Connor v. B. & L. E. E., 135 Mass. 352, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 362. 
 
 2 88 Penna. St. 35.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF INFANTS. 71 
 
 then must an infant's responsibility for negligence be 
 presumed to commence ? This question cannot be an- 
 swered by referring it to the jury. That would furnish 
 us with no rule whatever. It would give us a mere 
 shifting standard, affected by the sympathies or preju- 
 dices of the jury in each particular case. One jury 
 would fix the period of responsibility at fourteen, 
 another at twenty or twenty-one. This is not a ques- 
 tion of fact for the jury. It is question of law for the 
 court. Nor is its solution difficult. The rights, duties, 
 and responsibilities of infants are clearly defined by 
 the text writers as well as by numerous decisions. We 
 have seen that the law presumes that at fourteen years 
 of asre an infant has sufficient discretion and under- 
 
 O 
 
 standing to select a guardian and contract a marriage, 
 is capable of harboring malice and of taking human 
 life under circumstances that constitute the offence 
 murder. It, therefore, requires no strain to hold that 
 at fourteen an infant is presumed to have sufficient 
 capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger, 
 and to have the power to avoid it. And this presump- 
 tion ought to stand until it is overthrown by clear 
 proof of the absence of such discretion and intelligence 
 as is usual with infants of fourteen years of age." 1 
 
 1 In Colgan v. W. P. P. Ry., 4 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 400, Biddle, J., 
 applied the same rule in the case of a boy sixteen years of age. See also 
 Dietrich v. B. & H. S. Ry., 58 Md. 347, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 115, where 
 the injured boy was fifteen years of age ; but in Haycroft v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 
 04 X. Y. 636, where the injured infant was a girl, who was nearly seventeen 
 years of age, and whose injury was clearly due to her own carelessness, it was 
 held that the degree of care to be exercised by her was not as high as that 
 which was properly demandabie of an older person, and that it was for the 
 jury to determine whether or not she was contributorily negligent.
 
 72 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF INFANTS. 
 
 A railway owes to an infant, or to an adult of known mental or physx- 
 cal incapacity, a higher measure of duty than that which it owes to 
 an adidt of average mental and physical capacity. 
 
 74. Of course, a railway owes to an infant, or to a per- 
 son of known inferior mental or physical capacity, a 
 higher measure of duty than that which it owes to 
 adults of average mental and physical capacity : thus in 
 Smith v. O'Connor, 1 where the plaintiff, seven years of 
 age, sued to recover damages from the defendant for his 
 having negligently driven a horse and wagon over her 
 at a public crossing, judgment on a verdict for the plain- 
 tiff was affirmed in error, Strong, J., saying, "undoubt- 
 edly the age and capacity of the person injured may 
 have something to do with the question, whether a de- 
 fendant was guilty of negligence, for every one has a 
 right to act upon the supposition that adult persons will 
 take ordinary care to avoid danger, while such a pre- 
 sumption is unwarranted resj>ecting the conduct of those 
 who have not yet reached years of discretion. Hence a 
 higher degree of care and greater precaution are justly 
 demanded to avoid injury to the latter." Thy same 
 rule is applied where the railway servants know that an 
 adult is incapacitated by deafness, 2 and in such a case 
 they are bound to exercise for his protection a greater 
 degree of care than they would be required to exercise 
 if they did not know of his incapacity. 
 
 TJie fact of the infancy, or other incapacity, of the injured person will 
 not supply the want of proof of negligence on the part of the railway. 
 
 75. The fact of the infancy of the injured party will 
 not supply want of proof of negligence upon iiie part of 
 the railway ; thus, in A. T. & S. F. Ey. t\ Flinn, 3 the 
 
 1 48 Penna. St. 218. 
 
 * I. & G. N. Ry. v. Smith, 62 Tex. 252, 19 Am. & Eng. fi. R. Oas. 21. 
 
 8 24 Kans. 627, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 240.
 
 CONTKIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF INFANTS. 73 
 
 plaintiff, a girl of five years of age, having, with another 
 girl of the same age, been put by a relative on the rail- 
 way's train to proceed to a way station, and the servants 
 in charge of the train supposing them to be under the 
 charge of a passenger not having collected any fare from 
 them nor inquired as to their destination, and the train 
 having arrived and after waiting a reasonable time for 
 passengers to alight, had gotten under way, when the 
 plaintiff in attempting to alight was injured, it was held 
 that the railway was not liable. So in C. B. & Q. R. R. 
 v. Stumps, 1 the railway was held not to be liable to a boy 
 of seven years of age, who was injured while endeavor- 
 ing to climb on one of the cars of a freight train, which 
 was moving on the railway line which had been con- 
 structed on a public highway in a town, the proof show- 
 ing that the train was moving slowly under proper con- 
 trol, and that it was adequately manned. So in 
 McMahon v. N. C. Ry., 2 the railway was held not to be 
 liable to a boy less than six years of age, who was in- 
 jured while attempting to crawl unbler a car in motion. 
 So in Ostertag v. P. R. R., 3 the railway was held not to 
 be liable for the death of a boy, who, having taken his 
 seat beneath a freight car on a trestle was killed by a 
 sudden starting of the train. So in C. B. U. P. R. R. 
 v. Henigh, 4 the railroad was held not to be liable for the 
 death of a boy who climbed on a car on a siding, 
 loosened its brakes, and fell off or jumped off in front 
 of the car as it was moving by force of gravity on a 
 down grade. So in Wendell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 5 
 where a father sued for the death of a son seven years 
 of age, who, being accustomed to go to school and about 
 the streets without an attendant, was run over and killed 
 at a level crossing of a highway in the city of Schenec- 
 
 1 69 Til. 409. 2 39 Md. 438. 3 04 Mo. 421. 
 
 * 23 Kans. 347. 6 91 N. Y. 420.
 
 74 INTOXICATION AS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 tady, while attempting to run across the line in plain 
 view of an approaching train, it was held that the plain- 
 tiff should have been nonsuited, because the uncontra- 
 dicted testimony produced on his behalf showed no 
 negligence. So in Moore v. P. E. R., 1 a similar ruling 
 was made in the case of a boy ten years of age who 
 was killed while trespassing on a railway line. In 
 Sherman v. H. & St. J. R. R., 2 Hough, J., quotes with 
 approval the remark of Agnew, J., in Flower v. P. 
 R. R., 3 that the youth of the person injured "may 
 excuse him from concurring negligence, but it cannot 
 supply the place of negligence on the part of the com- 
 pany. 
 
 The fact of the intoxication of the injured person at the time of the in- 
 jury will not only not relieve him from the legal consequences of his 
 contributory negligence, but also, if his intoxicated state contributed 
 to the happening of the injury, will be admissible in evidence as 
 proof of contributory negligence. 
 
 76. The fact that the person injured was intoxicated 
 at the time of the injury, will not relieve him from the 
 legal consequences of his contributory negligence. 5 
 Proof of the intoxication of the person injured at the 
 time of the injury, is admissible in evidence for the 
 defendant, if the intoxicated state of the person injured 
 
 1 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 310, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 569. 
 
 2 72 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 3 69 Penna. St. 210. 
 
 * See also Snyder v. H. & St. J. R. R., 60 Mo. 413 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Heil, 5 
 Weekly Notes of Cases 91 ; II. M. & F. P. Ry. v. Kelley, 102 Penna. St. 115; 
 Flanders v. Meath, 27 Ga. 358 ; Roller v. S. S. R. R., Cal. , 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 333 ; Ilogan v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 59 Wise. 139, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 439 ; Maschek v. St. L. R. R., 71 Mo. 276, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38; 
 C. & A. R. R. v. Becker, 76 111. 25. 
 
 5 Kean v. B. & O. R, R., 61 Md. 154, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 321 ; T. P. 
 & W. R. R. i\ Riley, 47 111. 514 ; C, R. I. & P. R. K. v. Bell, 70 Id. 102; I. C. 
 R. R. v. Hutchinson, 47 Id. 408 ; Weeks v. N. O. & C. R. R., 32 La. An. 615 
 Milliman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 66 N. Y. 642.
 
 KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURED PERSON'S INCAPACITY. 75 
 
 contributed to the happening of the injury. 1 Evidence 
 is admissible to show that the plaintiff was an habitual 
 drunkard, as bearing on the question of the compensa- 
 tory damages to which he may be entitled. 2 
 
 An incapacity on the part of the injured person will not render the 
 railway liable to him under circumstances in which it would not be 
 liable to a person of average capacity, unless that incapacity be 
 known to the railway servants. 
 
 77. It has been stated that knowledge on the part of 
 the railway of the injured person's incapacity, imposes 
 upon the railway a higher measure of duty with re- 
 gard to that person, but it is, nevertheless, clear, that 
 the incapacity of the injured person, if not known to 
 the railway servants, will not render the railway liable 
 under circumstances in which it would not be liable to 
 persons who are not so incapacitated. This rule has 
 been applied in cases of deaf persons. 3 
 
 78. It is also to be said that the incapacity of the 
 person injured imposes on him the duty of exercising, 
 for his own protection, that degree of care for his own 
 safety that will, as far as possible, compensate for his 
 impaired sense of hearing, or of sight, or other disa- 
 bility. 1 
 
 1 Herring v. W. & R. R. R., 10 Ired. 402 ; I. C. R. R. v. Hutchinson, 47 111. 
 408 ; Weeks v. N. O. & C. R. R., 32 La. An. 615 ; Davis v. O. & C. R. R., 8 
 Oreg. 172; S. W. R. R. v. Hankerson, 61 Ga. 114; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Waller, 
 56 Tex. 331, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 431. 
 
 2 C. & P. R. R. v. Sutherland, 19 Ohio St. 151. 
 
 3 C, C. & C. R. R. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570 ; Poole v. N. C. R. R., 8 Jones 
 (N. C.) 340; I. C. R. R. v. Buckner, 2S 111. 299 ; Johnson v. L. & N. R. R., 
 
 Ky. , 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 623. 
 
 4 Johnson v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. , 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 623; C, 
 C. & C. R. R. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570 ; Zimmerman v. H. & St. J. R. R., 71 
 Mo. 476, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 191 ; Purl v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 73 Mo. 
 168, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 27 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Miller, 46 Mich. 532, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 89 ; Laicher v. N. O., J. & S. R. R., 28 La. An. 320 ; 
 Cogswell v. O. & C. R. R., 6 Oregon 417.
 
 76 the plaintiff's contributory negligence. 
 
 viii. the plaintiff's own contributory negli- 
 gence when suing for injuries to the person 
 of another. 
 
 Tlie plaintiff's own contributory negligence ivill bar his recovery when 
 he sues for damage to himself resulting from the personal injuries of 
 some one else. 
 
 79. The plaintiff's own contributory negligence will 
 bar his recovery, not only when he sues for his personal 
 injuries, but also when he sues for the loss caused to 
 him by personal injuries done to some one else, as 
 when a husband, master, or parent sues for the loss of 
 the services of an injured wife, servant, or child. 1 Thus, 
 it has been held to be contributory negligence in a 
 parent to knowingly allow an infant of less than four 
 years of age to go at large in a city street without a 
 protector ; 2 or, a boy to serve the drivers of horse cars 
 with water ; 3 or, a boy to ride upon the lead horse of a 
 team at a railway crossing, the teamster retaining no 
 control over that horse ; 4 or a boy to serve laborers on 
 a construction train with water; 5 or children to play 
 upon a railway line. 6 
 
 80. On the other hand, it has been held not to be 
 necessarily contributory negligence in parents to per- 
 mit a child of eighteen months of age to play in close 
 
 1 Glassey v. F. & P. Ry., 57 Penna. St. 172; Smith v. H. M. & F. Ry., 92 
 Id. 450 ; Cauley v. P. C. & St. L. Ry., 95 Id. 398 ; P. R. R. v. Bock, 93 Id. 
 427 ; Roller v. S. S. R. R., Cal. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 333 ; B. & I. 
 R. R. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. 670 ; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Vining, 27 Ind. 
 513. 
 
 2 Glassey i>.F. & P. Ry., 57 Penna. St. 172. 
 
 3 Smith v. H. M. & F. Ry., 92 Penna. St. 450. 
 
 4 P. R. R. v. Bock, 93 Penna. St. 427. 
 
 6 O. & M. Ry. v. Hammersley, 2S Ind. 371. 
 
 6 Williams v. T. & P. Ry., GO Tex. 205, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 403 ; E. & 
 C. R. R. v. Wolf, 59 Ind. 89 ; J. M. & I. R. R. v. Bowen, 49 Ind. 154 ; Albert- 
 son v. K. & D. M. R. R., 48 Iowa 292 ; Ewen v. C. & N. W. Ry., 38 Wise. 613 ; 
 Hauley v. P. C. & St. L. Ry., 95 Penna. St. 398, 98 Id. 498.
 
 NEGLIGENCE OF POOR PARENTS. 77 
 
 proximity to a railway line, under the guardianship of 
 another child eight years of age j 1 or to send a boy nine 
 years of age upon an errand which required him to 
 walk upon a railway line ; 2 or, to leave a child of tender 
 years under the care of a boy thirteen years of age ; 3 or, 
 under the care of a girl of eight years of age. 4 
 
 81. It has been held that poor parents of infant 
 children are not contributorily negligent if they do not 
 prevent their infant children from straying into the 
 public streets, or upon the lines of railways. 5 The judg- 
 ments in those cases seem to have been largely influenced 
 by the sentimental reflections of the judges upon the 
 poverty of the plaintiffs, and their consequent inability to 
 employ servants to watch their children, and the hard- 
 ship of requiring them to keep those children within 
 doors when they could not go safely abroad ; but those 
 learned judges failed to give clue weight to the consid- 
 eration that the railway was not responsible for the acts 
 of the parents in bringing the children into the world, 
 nor for that degree of misfortune which retained those 
 parents in a condition of more or less want, and that 
 there is no rule of law, nor principle of justice, which 
 compels railways to insure the public against the neces- 
 sary incidents of poverty, nor which entitles people, 
 either poor or rich, to make, at the expense of railways, 
 profitable speculations out of the deaths of the children 
 whom their own neglect of parental duty has exposed 
 
 1 P. A. & M. Ry. v. Pearson, 72 Penna. St. 169. 
 
 ' P. R. R. v. Lewis, 79 Penna. St. 33. 
 
 8 Dahl v. M. C. Ry., 62 Wise. 652, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 121. 
 
 4 C. & A. R. R. v. Gregory, 58 111. 226. 
 
 5 P. A. & M. Ry. v. Pearson, 72 Penna. St. 169 ; P. & R. R. R. o. Long, 75 
 Id. 257; Penna. Co. v. James, 81 J Id. 194; P. R. R. v. Lewis, 79 Id. 33; 
 Hoppe v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 61 Wise. 357, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 74; 
 Isabel v. II. & St. J. R. R., 60 Mo. 475 ; Walters v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 41 
 Iowa 71 ; O' Flaherty v. U. R. R., 45 Mo. 70 ; Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 
 75 Mo. 542, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 776.
 
 78 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CAEELEE's NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 to peril. The cases of Pearson, Long, Lewis, ana James 
 are open to criticism in other respects. In Pearson's 
 case the jury were permitted to find that a girl of eight 
 years of age was a competent nurse for an infant per- 
 mitted to play in proximity to a railway track, yet such 
 a finding is clearly contrary to reason. In Long's. 
 Lewis's, and James's cases, the injured infants were tres- 
 passers, and the defendant's owed no duty to them, 
 and, a fortiori, none to the parents who took no care to 
 prevent their children straying into danger. Judge 
 Redfield, with his usual clearness, expresses sound views 
 on this subject. 1 
 
 IX. THE ATTEIBUTION OF THE CAEEIEE's NEGLIGENCE 
 TO THE PASSENGEE. 
 
 Where a passenger sues for injuries done by other than that passen- 
 ger's carrier, negligence upon the part of that carrier is, in some 
 jurisdictions, attributed to the passenger as contributory negligence 
 upon his part, but, in other jurisdictions, this attribution of contribu- 
 tory negligence is not recognized. 
 
 82. The reason of the rule is, not that the servant of 
 the passenger's carrier, who, by his negligence, has con- 
 tributed to the accident, is pro hac vice the servant of 
 the passenger, but that the carrier is so far the agent 
 of the passenger that his negligence is the passenger's 
 negligence, or, in other words, that the passenger, hav- 
 ing entrusted his person to the carrier, and having been 
 injured by the negligence of that carrier, combined 
 with the negligence of a third party who was not under 
 any contractual duty to him, cannot be permitted to 
 recover from that third party for an injury which 
 would not have happened if it had not been for negli- 
 gence on the part of that carrier co-operating in bring- 
 
 1 2 Eedf. Ry. Cas. 501.
 
 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 79 
 
 ing the passenger into a position of danger. This rule 
 of law is tacitly assumed, though not expressly stated, 
 in Bridge v. G. J. By., 1 for there the contributory neg- 
 ligence which was considered, was not the plaintiff's 
 1 own negligence, but that of his carrier. In Thorogood 
 v. Bryan, 2 the plaintiff sued to recover, under Lord 
 Campbell's Act, for the death of her husband, who was 
 negligently killed by the defendant's servant driving an 
 omnibus, the decedent having been a passenger on an- 
 other omnibus whose driver was negligent in not draw- 
 ing up at the curb, and in permitting the decedent to 
 alight on the street from his omnibus while in motion. 
 At the trial Williams, J., directed the jury that " if 
 they were of opinion that want of care on the part of 
 the driver of his omnibus in not drawing up to the 
 curb to put the deceased down, or any want of care on 
 the part of the deceased himself, had been conducive to 
 the injury, their verdict must be for the defendant." 
 The jury having found for the defendant, a rule for a 
 new trial was discharged, Maule, J., saying, "if the 
 deceased himself had been driving the case would have 
 been free from doubt. So there could have been no 
 doubt had the driver been employed to drive him and 
 no one else. On the part of the plaintiff, it is sug- 
 gested that a passenger in a public conveyance has no 
 control over the driver. But I think that cannot with 
 propriety be said. He selects the conveyance. He 
 enters into a contract with the owner, whom, by his 
 servant, he employs to drive him. If he is dissat- 
 isfied with the mode of conveyance, he is not obliged 
 to avail himself of it. According to the terms of the 
 contract he unquestionably has a remedy for any neg- 
 ligence on the part of the person with whom he con- 
 tracts for the journey. * * * If there is negligence on 
 
 1 3 M. & W. 244. • 8 C. B. 115, 65 E. C. L.
 
 SO ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER^ NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 the part of those who have contracted to carry the pas- 
 sengers, those who are injured have a clear and un- 
 doubted remedy against them. But it seems strange to 
 say, that, although the defendant could not, under the 
 circumstances, be liable to the owner of the other om- 
 nibus for any damage done to his carriage, he still 
 would be responsible for an injury to a passenger. The 
 passenger is not without remedy. But, as regards the 
 present defendant, he is not altogether without fault. 
 He chose his own conveyance, and must take the con- 
 sequences of any default of the driver whom he saw fit 
 to trust." 
 
 83. In Catlin-y. Hills, 1 the plaintiff, having been a pas- 
 senger on the steamboat "Sons of the Thames," with 
 which the defendant's boat "Sapphire" had collided, 
 and having been injured by reason of the anchor of the 
 Sons of the Thames having become dislodged in the 
 collision and falling upon him, brought his action against 
 the owners of the Sapphire. Cresswell, J., directed the 
 jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover if they 
 were of opinion that there had been negligence on the 
 part of those entrusted with the conduct and manage- 
 ment of the Sons of the Thames, but that they must dis- 
 miss from their minds all that had been said about the 
 stowing of the anchor, for the plaintiff would be en- 
 titled to a verdict even though they should think 
 that the anchor had been improperly left unfastened. 
 The jury having found for the plaintiff, a rule for a new 
 trial upon the ground of misdirection was argued, but 
 before judgment was rendered the case was settled, it 
 being stated in a note to the report that it was under- 
 stood that the court would have discharged the rule. 
 In Armstrong v. L. & Y. By., 2 the L. & N. W. By. 
 had statutory running powers over the defendant's line, 
 
 1 8 C. B. 123, 65 E. C. L. ■ L. E. 10 Ex. 47.
 
 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 81 
 
 and the plaintiff, an officer of the L. & N. W. company, 
 was travelling on their pass and in their train over the 
 defendant's line, and was injured by an accident caused 
 by the concurring negligence of the two companies. It 
 was held that the plaintiff was so far identified with the 
 L & N. W. By., not by his official position, but by reason 
 of his being a passenger on its train, that he could not 
 recover for negligence to which they had contributed. 
 In Child v. Hearn, 1 the plaintiff, a plate layer in the 
 service of the G. E. By., was moving on their line in a 
 hand car when the defendant's pigs, having run through 
 a fence which the railway had, under statutory obli- 
 gations, constructed, and which was insufficiently con- 
 structed, upset the hand car and injured the plaintiff. 
 It was held that the plaintiff hj using the company's 
 line for their purposes was identified with their negli- 
 gence and could not recover from the defendant. 2 In 
 Pennsylvania the doctrine seems to have been adopted 
 to its full extent. In Simpson v. Hand, 3 the plaintiffs, 
 owners of goods shipped on the steamer Thorn, which 
 was run into by the steamer William Henry and the 
 goods destroyed, brought an action against the owners 
 of the William Henry, who defended upon the ground 
 that the collision was contributed to by the negligence 
 of the master and crew of the Thorn. It was held that 
 the neglisrence of the carrier's crew was attributable to 
 the plaintiffs, and that they could not recover. In 
 Lockhart v. Lichtenthaler, 4 the plaintiff, a widow, sued 
 to recover for the death of her husband, a brakeman 
 upon coal cars which were run over the A. V. B. B. by 
 locomotives of the company, the decedent having been 
 
 1 L. R. 9 Ex. 176. 
 
 * See also Lord Blackburn's judgment in Spaight t;. Tedcastle, 6 App. Cas. 
 217, and "The Bernina," 11 P. D. 31. 
 
 3 6 Wharton 311. 
 
 * 46 Penna. St. 151. 
 
 6
 
 82 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER^ NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 killed by a collision with some empty oil cars which the 
 defendant had negligently placed near the railroad 
 track, negligence upon the part of the A. V. R. R. hav- 
 ing contributed to the accident. At the trial the judge 
 instructed the jury to disregard the contributory negli- 
 gence of the railroad, but judgment upon a verdict for 
 the plaintiff was reversed in error, the Supreme Court 
 holding that the contributory negligence of the carrier 
 must be imputed to the decedent. In P. & R. R. R. v. 
 Boyer, 1 the plaintiff sued to recover for the death of her 
 husband, a passenger in a car of a street railway, who 
 was killed in a collision of his car with the defendant's 
 train. Judgment upon a verdict for the plaintiff was 
 reversed in error because the judge at the trial took away 
 from the jury the question of the contributory negligence 
 upon the part of the driver of the street car. 
 
 84. There are, however, some English cases which 
 do not, at first sight, seem to be reconcilable with the 
 preceding cases. In Rigby v. Hewitt, 2 the plaintiff, 
 having been a joassenger in an omnibus, brought suit 
 against the owners of another omnibus which, while 
 both omnibuses were driving at great speed, collided 
 with the omnibus in which the plaintiff was a passenger 
 and threw him out. Rolfe, B., directed the jury that 
 the plaintiff was not disentitled to recover merely because 
 the omnibus in which he sat was driving at a furious 
 rate of speed, and that if the jury thought the collision 
 took place from the negligence of the driver of defend- 
 ant's omnibus and that plaintiff's omnibus was not in 
 fault, in not endeavoring to avoid the accident, then the 
 defendant was liable. The jury having found for the 
 plaintiff a new trial was moved for upon the ground of 
 misdirection, but the rule was refused. In Greenland 
 v. Chaplin, 3 the facts were curiously identical with those 
 
 1 97 Penna. St. 91. 2 5 Ex. 240. 3 5 Ex. 243.
 
 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 83 
 
 in Catlin v. Hills. Pollock, C. B., directed the jury 
 that if they were of the opinion that the collision was 
 owing to bad navigation of the defendant's steamboat, 
 they should find for the plaintiff, and if they thought 
 there was any negligence either in the stowage of the 
 anchor or on the part of the plaintiff in putting himself 
 in the place where he was on board his steamboat they 
 should find for the defendant. The jury having found 
 for the plaintiff a rule for a new trial was discharged. 
 Pollock, C. B., after commenting on the finding of the 
 jury which had negatived negligence on the part of the 
 plaintiff's carrier, added, "On consideration I am of 
 opinion that the law, as laid down by me in this respect, 
 was not correct. I entirely concur with the rest of the 
 court, that a person who is guilty of negligence, and 
 thereby produces injury to another, has no right to say 
 — 'Part of that mischief would not have arisen, if you 
 yourself had not been guilty of some negligence.' I 
 think that where the negligence of the party injured did 
 not in any degree contribute to the immediate cause of 
 the accident, such negligence ought not to be set up as an 
 answer to the action. And certainly I am not aware 
 that according to any decision which has ever occurred, 
 the jury are to take the consequences and divide them 
 in proportion according to the negligence of the one or 
 the other party." Yet these cases are not really author- 
 ities against the rule, for in each case the findings of the 
 jury negatived negligence on the part of the plaintiff's 
 carrier, and the dicta of the judges obviously had refer- 
 ence, not to the liability of the passenger for the negli- 
 gence of his carrier, in general, but to his liability for 
 that negligence upon the part of the carrier which 
 was too remote to be considered a proximate cause of the 
 injury. In Mann v. Wieand, 1 where a widow sued to 
 
 1 4 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 6.
 
 84 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 recover for injuries resulting in the death of her husband, 
 the defendant's vicious dog having frightened the horses 
 drawing a wa 2:011 in which the decedent had been invited 
 to drive and was being carried, judgment upon a verdict 
 for the plaintiff was reversed on other grounds, but in 
 his judgment Mercur, C. J., said: "the husband had no 
 control or authority over the driver ; nor did the driver 
 control the personal conduct of the husband. He, 
 therefore, was not liable for the negligent conduct of the 
 driver. * * * Negligence in a general sense would not 
 protect the defendant from liability for a direct and 
 proximate injury caused by his own negligence." 
 Judgment upon a verdict for the plaintiff was reversed 
 in error upon other grounds, and the remarks of the 
 learned Chief Justice upon this subject must be regarded 
 as obiter dicta, which are not to be reconciled with the 
 judgments of his court in the earlier case of Lockhart 
 v. Lichten thaler, or the later case of P. & R. R. R. v. 
 Boyer, in whose decision he participated. In England 
 the rule has been criticised by the learned editor of 
 Smith's Leading Cases, 1 by Williams, J., in the course 
 of the argument in Tuff v. Warman, 2 and by the same 
 judge again in Waite v. N. E. Ry., 3 and by Dr. Lush- 
 ington in The Milan, 4 but its re-affirmance in the cases 
 which have been cited from the Law Reports would 
 seem to show that in the opinions of English judges 
 these criticisms are not well founded. 
 
 85. In Little, Receiver, etc., v. Hackett, 5 where the 
 facts were that the plaintiff, while being driven in a 
 hired hack, was injured at a grade crossing by the con- 
 curring negligence of the railway and the hack driver, 
 the judge at the trial directed the jury that the negli- 
 gence of the hack driver was not to be attributed to the 
 
 1 Vol. I, p. 366. ! 2C.B. N. S. 740, 89 E. C. L- 
 
 ■ El. Bl. & El. 729, 96 E. C. L. 4 1 Lush. 388, 403. 5 116 U. S. 366.
 
 ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 85 
 
 passenger, unless it should be found that the passenger 
 supervised and controlled the action of the driver. The 
 jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, judgment 
 thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States upon a bill of exceptions to the direction of the 
 judge at the trial. Field, J., in delivering judgment, 
 said : " Cases cited from the English courts * * * and 
 numerous others decided in the courts of this country, 
 show that the relation of master and servant does not 
 exist between the passenger and the driver, or between 
 the passenger and the owner. In the absence of this 
 relation, the imputation of their negligence to the passen- 
 ger, when no fault of omission or commission is charge- 
 able to him, is against all legal rules. If their negligence 
 could be imputed to him, it would render him equally 
 with them responsible to third parties thereby injured, 
 and would also preclude him from maintaining an action 
 against the owner for injuries received by him. But neither 
 of these conclusions can be maintained ; neither has the 
 support of any adjudged cases entitled to consideration. 
 The truth is, the decision in Thorogood v. Bryan rests 
 upon indefensible ground. The identification of the 
 passenger with the negligent driver, or the owner, with- 
 out his personal co-oj)eration or encouragement, is a 
 gratuitous assumption. There is no such identity. The 
 parties are not in the same position. The owner of a 
 public conveyance is a carrier, and the driver, or the 
 person managing it, is his servant. Neither of them is 
 the servant of the passenger ; and his asserted identity 
 with them is contradicted by the daily experience of the 
 world." 
 
 86. It may be suggested in reply to the line of argu- 
 ment so forcibly stated by Field, J., in the last cited case, 
 that the reason of the rule is, as put by Maule, J., in
 
 SO ATTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Thorogoood v. Bryan, 1 that the passenger having volun- 
 tarily contraeted with his carrier, and having thereby 
 put himself under the control of that carrier and of that 
 carrier's servants, must take upon himself the conse- 
 quences to himself of that carrier's negligence. It is 
 irrelevant to urge that it must be conceded that the car- 
 rier and the carrier's servant are not the servants of the 
 passenger, and that the passenger is not responsible to 
 third parties for injuries done to them by the negligence 
 of the carrier, or of the carrier's servant ; for the attri- 
 bution to the passenger of the carrier's contributory neg- 
 ligence is based, not upon an assumption by the passen- 
 ger of control over the carrier, but upon a submission 
 by the passenger of his person to the control of the car- 
 rier. Despite the criticisms, therefore, of so many and 
 so high authorities, I venture to believe that Thorogood 
 v. Bryan was rightly decided, and that the rule, as main- 
 tained in England and in Pennsylvania, is founded upon 
 correct principles of law. 2 
 
 1 8 C. B. 115, 65 E. C. L., section 82. 
 
 2 In opposition to the rule there can also be cited Colegrove v. N. Y. & N. 
 H. R. R., 20 N. Y. 492 ; Bennett v. N. J. R. R., 86 N. J. Law 225 ; Tompkins 
 v. Clay, St. H. R. R., Cal. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 144; Chapman v. 
 N. H. R. R., 19 N. Y. 341 ; W. St. L. & P. Ry. v. Shacklet, 105 111. 364, 12 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 166 ; Dyer v. Erie R. R., 71 N. Y. 228 ; Danville Turnpike 
 Co. v. Stewart, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 119 ; L. R. R. v. Case, 9 Bush 728; Eaton v. B. & 
 L. R. R., 11 Allen 500 ; Transfer Co. v. Kelly, 36 Ohio St. 86, 3 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 335; Masterson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 84 N. Y. 247, 3 Am. & 
 Eng; R. R. Cas. 408 ; Robinson v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 66 Id. 11 ; Malmsten 
 v. M. II. & O. R. R., 49 Mich. 94, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 291 ; N. Y., L. E. 
 & W. R. R. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. L. 161 ; Perry v. Lansing, 17 Hun 34 ; 
 Busch v. B. C. R. R., 29 Hun 112 ; Gray v. P. & R. R. R. (U. S. C. C. N. D. N. 
 Y.), 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 351 ; Webster v. II. R. R., 38 N. Y. 260 ; P., C. & 
 St. L. R. R. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 478. For the 
 rule there can be cited, Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115, 65 E. C. L. ; Bridge 
 v. G. J. Ry., 3 M. & W. 244 ; Catlin v. Hills, 8 C. B. 123, 65 E. C. L. ; Arm- 
 strong v. L. & Y. Ry., L. R. 10 Ex. 47 ; Child v. Hearn, L. R. 9 Ex. 176 ; " The 
 Bernina," 11 P. D. 31 ; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Wh. 31 1 ; Lockhart v. Lichtenthaler. 
 46 Penna. St. 151 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Boyer, 97 Id. 91 ; Smith v. Smith, 2 Pick. 
 621 ; C, C. & C. R. R. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570 ; Puterbaugh v. Reasor, 9 Id. 484 ;
 
 ATTRIBUTION OF A DECEDENT'S NEGLIGENCE. 87 
 
 87. Upon the same principle it lias been held that 
 where a wife is injured by collision with a train, while 
 travelling in a vehicle driven by her husband, his con- 
 tributory negligence bars her recovery. 1 So, where a 
 master sues for injury done to his property, while under 
 the care of a servant, the contributory negligence of 
 that servant will bar a recovery by the master. 2 
 
 S. THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE 
 DECEDENT TO THOSE WHO SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR 
 HIS DEATH. 
 
 The contributory negligence of a person who has been killed will bar a 
 recovery by those who sue for damages for his death. 
 
 88. Contributory negligence on the part of the per- 
 son killed, will be a defence to an action by the parties 
 entitled to recover for his death. The limitation in 
 Lord Campbell's Act of the right to recover to such 
 cases only " as would, if death had not ensued, have 
 entitled the party to maintain an action to recover 
 damages in respect thereof," has been construed by the 
 Queen's Bench in Pym v. Gr. N. By., 3 to have " refer- 
 ence, not to the nature of the loss or injury sustained, 
 but to the circumstances under which the bodily injury 
 arose, and the nature of the wrongful act, neglect, or 
 default complained of," and Cockburn, C. J., added, 
 
 Bryan v. N. Y. C. R. R., 31 Barb. 335 ; Nicholls v. G. W. Ry., 27 Up. Can. (Q. 
 B.) 382 ; Payne v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 39 Iowa 523 ; Mooney v. H. R. R. R., 5 
 Robertson <N. Y.) 548; L. S. & M. S. Ry. >: Miller, 25 Mich. 274. The rule 
 has obviously no application to the case of a passenger, who, having been landed 
 by a steamboat company upon a railway pier is run over on the pier by a train 
 negligently bandied by the railway company, there being no concurring negli- 
 gence on the part of the steamboat company. Malmsteu v. M. H. & O. R. R., 
 49 Mich. 94, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 291. 
 
 1 Carlisle v. Sheldon, 38 Vt. 440; Peck v. N. Y., N. H. & H. E. R., 50 Conn. 
 379, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 633. 
 
 2 T. & W. R. R. v. Goddard. 25 Ind. 185. 
 S 2B. &S. 759, 110 E. C. L.
 
 88 NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACTING PARTY. 
 
 " thus, if the deceased had by his own negligence mate- 
 terially contributed to the accident whereby he lost his 
 life, as he, if still living, could not have maintained an 
 action in respect of any bodily injury, notwithstanding 
 there might have been negligence on the part of the 
 defendant, the present action could not have been sup- 
 ported." So, Denman, C. J., in Tucker v. Chaplin, 1 
 in an action under Lord Campbell's Act, directed the 
 jury, that "the rules in actions brought under this 
 statute by representatives, are the same as in actions 
 brought by the injured parties themselves ; therefore, 
 if the deceased, by his conduct, leads to the accident, 
 an action under the statute does not lie." 2 
 
 XI. THE NEGLIGENCE OF A CONTRACTING PARTY AS 
 ATTRIBUTED TO THE PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF 
 THE CONTRACT WAS MADE. 
 
 Where the action is brought to recover damages for a tort founded upon 
 a contract, the contributory negligence of the contracting party will 
 bar a recovery by the person upon whose behalf the contract was made. 
 
 89. Where the suit is brought, not for a pure tort, 
 but for a tort founded upon contract, contributory neg- 
 ligence upon the part of the contracting party will bar 
 a recovery by the injured person on whose behalf the 
 contract was made. Thus, in Waite v. N. E. Ey., 3 the 
 plaintiff, an infant of five, had been taken by its grand- 
 mother to the defendant's station, where she had bought 
 tickets for the child and herself. Having to cross the 
 line in order to get to the platform at which the train 
 
 1 2 C. & K. N. P. 730, 61 E. C. L. 
 
 1 See, also, Witherley v. Regents' Canal Co., 12 C. B. N. S. 2, 104 E. C. L. ; 
 Lofton v. Vogles, 17 Ind. 105; Rowland v. Cannon, 35 Ga. 105; Gerety v. P., 
 W. & B. R. R., 81 Penna. St. 274 ; Karle r. K. C, St. J. & C. B. R. R., 55 Mo. 
 476 ; Dewey v. C. & N. W. By., 31 Iowa 373 ; Kelly v. Hendrie, 26 Mich. 
 255. 
 
 s El. El. & El. ; 719, 96 E. C. L.
 
 NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACTING PARTY. 89 
 
 was to stop, the grandmother and child, in crossing the 
 line, were run over and the child hurt. The jury hav- 
 ing found specially that the defendants and the plain- 
 tiff's grandmother were negligent, on these findings 
 Martin, B., entered the verdict for the plaintiffs, with 
 leave to the defendants to move for a nonsuit or the 
 entry of a judgment for them. After argument the 
 rule was made absolute. Campbell, C. J., said : " The 
 relation of master and servant certainly did not subsist 
 between the grandchild and the grandmother ; and she 
 cannot, in any sense, be considered his agent ; but we 
 think that the defendants, in furnishing the ticket to 
 the one and the half ticket for the other, did not incur a 
 greater liability toward the grandchild than toward 
 the grandmother, and that she, the contracting party, 
 must be implied to have promised that ordinary care 
 should be taken of the grandchild. * * * At all events, a 
 complete identification seems to us to be constituted 
 between the plaintiff and the party whose negligence 
 contributed to the damage which is the alleged cause of 
 action, in the same manner as if the plaintiff had been a 
 baby only a few days old, to be carried in a nurse's arms." 
 A writ of error having been taken to the Exchequer 
 Chamber, the judgment was affirmed. Cockburn, C. J., 
 said : " I put the case on this ground, that, when a 
 child of such tender years and imbecile age is brought 
 to a railway station or to any conveyance, for the pur- 
 pose of being conveyed, and is wholly unable to take 
 care of itself, the contract of conveyance is on the im- 
 plied condition that the child is to be conveyed subject 
 to due and proper care on the part of the person having 
 it in charge." Pollock, C. B., said : " There really is 
 no difference between the case of a person of tender 
 years under the care of another, and a valuable chattel 
 committed to the care of an individual, or even not com-
 
 90 NEGLIGENCE OF PARENTS, ETC. 
 
 mitted to such care. The action cannot be maintained 
 unless it can be maintained by the person having the 
 apparent possession, even though the grandchild or the 
 chattel was not regularly put into the possession of 
 the person, as, for instance, though the party taking 
 charge of the child had done so without the father's 
 consent; that circumstance would make no difference 
 as to the question of the child's right." Bramwell, B., 
 said : " In form the action is for a wrong ; but it is, in 
 fact, for a breach of duty created by contract. It is 
 alleged that the plaintiff was lawfully on the rail- 
 way. That could be so only on the supposition that 
 he had become a passenger through the instrumentality 
 of himself or another. There must be a contract or 
 duty. It is impossible to say that the company con- 
 tracted any other duty toward the infant, thus accom- 
 panied, than they would have contracted toward an 
 adult, or that they were responsible for what would 
 have occasioned no mischief but for the negligence of a 
 person having the custody of the plaintiff." 
 
 XII. THE ATTRIBUTION TO INFANTS OF THE CONTRIB- 
 UTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PARENTS AND GUARDIANS. 
 
 Where the injured person is an infant of tender years, and the ground 
 of the action is a pure tort, it is for the jury and not for the court 
 to determine whether or not the contributory negligence of the parents 
 or guardians of the infant in permitting him or her to be at large 
 is such as to bar the infant's recovery. 
 
 90. There are many authorities for the proposition 
 that where an injured infant is the plaintiff, and the 
 cause of action is a pure tort, contributory negligence 
 on the part of the parents or guardians of the infant 
 plaintiff in permitting him or her to roam at large will 
 not bar the plaintiff's recovery. The question does not 
 seem to have been ruled in England. In Lynch v.
 
 NEGLIGENCE OF PARENTS, ETC. 91 
 
 Nurdin, 1 which is often cited in support of this propo- 
 sition, the question was not raised, although in the case 
 of Lygo v. Newbold, 2 Lynch v. Nurdin having been 
 cited, Alderson, B., misapprehending that case, said, 
 " the negligence, in truth, is attributable to the parent 
 who permits the child to be at large. . It seems strange 
 that a person who rides in his carriage without a ser- 
 vant, if a child receives an injury by getting up behind 
 for the purpose of having a ride, should be liable for 
 the injury;" but Pollock, C. B., obviously replying to 
 Alderson, B., put Lynch v. Nurdin on the correct 
 ground, that "the plaintiff, being a child of tender 
 years, could not be considered as causing any part of 
 the injury it had sustained, but that the mischief was 
 occasioned solely by the defendant's default." 3 
 
 91. Cowen, J., in Hartfield v. Roper, 4 where the 
 plaintiff, a child of two years of age, had sued to re- 
 cover for injuries received by being run over while 
 straying on a highway, puts the ground of his judg- 
 ment against the plaintiff thus : " an infant is not sui 
 juris. He belongs to another to whom discretion in 
 the care of his person is exclusively confided. That 
 person is keeper and agent for this purpose, and in re- 
 
 1 1 Q. B. 29, 41 E. C. L. 2 8 Ex. 302. 
 
 3 In support of the proposition there can aso be cited : Robinson v. Cone, 
 22 Vt. 213 ; Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507 ; Kay v. P. E. R., 65 Penna. St. 
 269 ; G. St. R. R. v. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 70 ; B. & I. R. R. v. Snyder, 18 Ohio St. 
 399 ; N. & P. R. R. v. Ormsby, 27 Gratt. 455 ; Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 75 
 Mo. 542 ; C. H. & 1 1. Ry. v. Moore, 59 Tex. 64, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 745 ; 
 Daley v. N. & W. R. R., 26 Conn. 591 ; McGeary v. E. R. R., 135 Mass. 363, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 407 ; Smith v. A., T. & S. F. R. R., 25 Kans. 738, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. B. Cas. 554 ; St. L., I. M. & R. By. r. Freeman, 36 Ark. 41, 4 Am. 
 & Eng. B. B. < as. 608. Against the proposition there can be cited: Ilartiield 
 r. Roper, 21 Wend. 615 ; Mangam v. B. C. R. R., 38 N. Y. 456 ; Holly v. Boston 
 Gas Light Co., 8 Gray 123; Brown v. E. & N. A. R. R., 58 Me. 384; Fitz- 
 gerald v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 29 Minn. 336, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas 310; 
 L. & I. Ry. v. Iluffmann, 28 Ind. 287 ; T., W. & W. Ry. v. Grabel, 88 111. 441 ; 
 Meeks v. S. P. Ry., 52 Cal. 602. 
 
 * 21 Wend. 615.
 
 92 NEGLIGENCE OF PARENTS, ETC. 
 
 spect to third persons his act must be deemed that of the 
 infant, his neglect, the infant's neglect. If his propel 
 agent and guardian has suffered him to incur mischief, 
 it is much more fit that he should look for redress to 
 that guardian, than that the latter should negligently 
 allow his ward to be in the way of travellers and then 
 harass them in courts of justice, recovering heavy ver- 
 dicts for his own misconduct." 
 
 92. On the other hand in Kay v. P. R. R., 1 where 
 the plaintiff, nineteen months of age, sued to recover for 
 injuries caused by being run over by defendant's cars 
 upon a siding on an open lot, of which lot defendant 
 was in possession. The plaintiff lived with her parents 
 in a shanty on the lot, and the defendant had permitted 
 the public to make use of the ground. The injury was 
 caused by detaching a lumber car and sending it around 
 a curve on a down grade .unattended by a brakeman. 
 The jury found for the plaintiff, but upon a point re- 
 served, the court below entered judgment for the defend- 
 ant non obstante veredicto, which was reversed in error 
 upon the ground that the defendant having licensed the 
 public use of the lot it was for the jury to say whether 
 they had been negligent in moving their cars under the 
 circumstances, and also that the negligence of the par- 
 ents, if any, in permitting the child to stray from the 
 house could not be imputed to the child, Agnew, J., 
 saying: "The doctrine which imputes the negligence of 
 the parent to the child in such a case as this is repulsive 
 to our natural instincts and repugnant to the condition 
 of that class of persons who have to maintain life by 
 daily toil. It is not the case where the positive act of a 
 parent or guardian had placed a child in a position of 
 danger, necessarily requiring the care of the adult to be 
 constantly exercised, as where a parent takes a child 
 
 1 65 Penna. St. 2G9.
 
 NEGLIGENCE OF PAKENTS, ETC. 93 
 
 into the cars, and by his neglect suffers it to be injured 
 by straying off upon the platform. But here a mother 
 toiling for daily bread, and having done the best she 
 could, in the midst of her necessary employment, loses 
 sight of her child for an instant, and it strays upon the 
 track. With no means to provide a servant for her 
 child, why should the necessities of her position in life 
 attach to the child, and cover it with blame ? When 
 injured by positive negligence, why should it be without 
 redress ? A negligent wrong is done ; it is incapable 
 of contributing to it — then why should the wrong not 
 be compensated ?" 
 
 93. In order to justly estimate the relative weight and 
 value of these conflicting authorities, it must be remem- 
 bered that the precise question, is, whether or not, when 
 an infant has been injured by the negligence of a rail- 
 way, that is, by a failure on the part of the railway to 
 perform some specific duty which, under the particular 
 circumstances of the case, it owed to the infant, the 
 plaintiff's recovery is to be barred by the antecedent 
 failure of his or her parents or guardians to perform 
 that general duty of protection which they owe to the 
 infant. The question, therefore, does not arise until 
 negligence on the part of the railway has been proven, 
 but when that has been proven, the antecedent negli- 
 gence on the part of the infant's parents or guardians 
 does not constitute, injustice, a defence to the railway, 
 for if the railway can say to the infant, ''you would not 
 have been injured by my negligence, if your parents or 
 guardians had not been negligent in permitting you to 
 stray on the highway," the infant can reply, "it is true 
 they neglected their duty, but notwithstanding that 
 neglect I would not have been hurt if you had not failed 
 to do your duty to me." The necessary allegations of 
 the injured infant and the railway being thus stated, it
 
 94 NEGLIGENCE OF PARENTS, ETC. 
 
 would seem that the negligence on the part of the 
 infant's parents or guardians is a remote and not a 
 proximate cause of the injury, and that, for that reason, 
 that negligence is not in any proper sense contributory 
 negligence. This line of reasoning renders it unneces- 
 sary to invoke the humanitarian and sentimental consider- 
 ations upon which Agnew, J., dwells in Kay v. P. R. 
 R., and the intrusion of which into the judgments of 
 courts so often furnishes illustrations of the maxim 
 "hard cases make bad law." Dr. Wharton 1 assumes 
 that in England the law is as laid down in Hartfield v. 
 Roper. The question has, as I have stated, never been 
 raised in England. Neither Lynch v. Nurdin, 2 Single- 
 ton v. E. C. Ry., 3 Mangan v. Atterton, 4 nor Waite v. N. 
 E. Ry., 5 touch the question. When it does come to be 
 considered in England, the application of the doctrine 
 of Davies v. Mann will necessarily lead to the conclusion 
 that as the injury could have been, notwithstanding the 
 negligence of the infant's parents or guardians, avoided 
 by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the 
 railway, the negligence of the parents or guardians will 
 not bar the plaintiff's recovery. The carefully guarded 
 judgments in Waite v. N. E. Ry., show that that case rests 
 on the contractual relation between the parties and fur- 
 nishes no authority for an action grounded on a pure tort. 
 94. Of course, where a parent personally conducts a 
 child into a position of danger, the parent's contributory 
 negligence will be attributed to the child ; as, for in- 
 stance, where a child of tender years is injured while 
 trespassing upon a railway line in company with its 
 mother. 6 
 
 1 Law of Negligence, sec. 311. ! 1 Q. E. 29, 41 E. C. L. 
 
 '7C.B. N. S. 287, 97 E. C. L. * L. R. 1 Ex. 239. 
 
 4 El. Bl. &E1. 719, 96 E. C. L. 
 
 9 Grethen v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. (U. S. C. C District of Minnesota), 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 342.
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF STRANGERS. 95 
 
 XIII. THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF STRANGERS. 
 
 The contributory negligence of third persons, unconnected with the 
 plaintiff or the person injured, will not bar the plaintiff's recovery. 
 
 95. The contributory negligence of persons uncon- 
 nected with the plaintiff will not be imputed to the 
 plaintiff as contributory negligence. Thus in N. P. R. 
 R. v. Mahoney, 1 the plaintiff, a child of four years of 
 age, while playing near the defendant's line, having 
 been picked up by an aunt to whom her parents had 
 not delegated her care and custody, was injured by the 
 railway's negligence concurring with that of the aunt 
 who was carrying her across the line ; and it was held 
 that the negligence of the aunt could not be imputed 
 as contributory negligence to the plaintiff. In P. A. & 
 M. P. Ry. v. Caldwell, 2 a similar ruling was made where 
 an infant was injured by negligence on the part of the 
 railway, concurring with the negligence of another in- 
 fant who was a companion of the plaintiff, but not in 
 charge of her. 3 
 
 1 57 Penna. St. 187. 
 
 1 74 Penna. St. 421. 
 
 s See also Eaton v. B. & L. R. R., 11 Allen 500 ; Scott v. Shepherd, 2 W. 
 Bl. 892; Dixon v. Bell, 5 M. & S. 198, Stark 287, 2 E. C. L.; Illidge v. 
 Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 190, 24 E. C. L. ; Hughes v. Macfie, 2 H. & 0. 744 ; Hill v. 
 New River Co., 9 B. & S. 303 ; Burrows v. March G. & C. Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 66, 
 7 Id. 96 ; Collins v. Middle Level Commrs., L. R. 4 C. P. 279; Harrison v. G. 
 N. Ry., 3 H. & C. 321 ; Watling v. Oastler, L. R. 6 Ex. 73 ; Daniels v. Potter, 
 4 C. & P. 262, 19 E. C. L. ; Clark v. Chambers, L. R., 3 Q. B. D. 327, criti- 
 cising Mangan v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Ex 239.
 
 96 FOE WHOM THE RAILWAY IS LIABLE. 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 THE PERSONS FOR WHOSE ACTS OR OMISSIONS THE RAIL 
 WAY IS LIABLE. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE RAILWAY'S RESPONSIBILITY 
 FOR OTHERS. 
 
 I. The liability as affected by the character of the act, as one of omission 
 or of commission. 
 II. Special and general agency. 
 III. Classification of the persons for whose acts railways are liable. 
 
 I. THE LIABILITY AS AFFECTED BY THE CHARACTER OF 
 THE ACT, AS ONE OF OMISSION OR OF COMMISSION. 
 
 Where the injury is done by the omission of a particular act of care 
 which the duty of the railway to the person injured requires it to do 
 for his protection, the fact of the omission fixes the liability of rail- 
 way ; and the relation between the railway and the person who has 
 omitted to perform the duty is immaterial ; but where the injury is 
 done by an act of commission, the liability of the railway depends 
 upon the fact of the relation of agency between the railway and the 
 actual wrongdoer. 
 
 96. To render a railway liable for an injury in the 
 course of its operations to the person of one who is him- 
 self without fault, it must necessarily be proven that 
 the injury resulted from either the omission of some 
 particular act of care, or the commission of some par- 
 ticular act of carelessness or of wilful wrongdoing, or 
 the negligent performance of some rightful act by the 
 railway, or by some person for whose act causing the 
 injury the railway is legally responsible.
 
 LIABILITY AS AFFECTED BY CHARACTER OF ACT. 97 
 
 11 97. Of course, where the injury is done by an act, the 
 actual wrongdoer is civiliter responsible to the person 
 injured ; but the legal liability of the railway for the 
 injury is dependent upon the positive or negative char- 
 acter of the act which causes the injury, and upon the 
 relation of the wrongdoer to the railway. Where the 
 injury is done by the omission of a particular act of 
 care, which the duty of the railway to the person in- 
 jured requires it to do for his protection, the fact of the 
 omission fixes the liability of the railway ; and the re- 
 lation between the railway and the individual who has 
 omitted to perform the duty is immaterial; for, as 
 Blackburn, J., has said, 1 " the liability for an omission 
 to do something depends entirely on the extent to which 
 a duty is imposed to cause that thing to be done, and 
 * * * it is quite immaterial whether the actual actors are 
 servants or not." Upon the same principle, a railway 
 is liable for an independent contractor's non -perform- 
 ance of a duty whose performance was incumbent uj:>on 
 his employer, the railway. 2 On the other hand, where 
 the injury is done by an act of commission, as the rail- 
 way is an artificial person and can act only by its agents 
 or servants, its liability must depend upon the fact of 
 the relation of agency between the railway and the 
 actual wrongdoer, for, as Rolfe, B., has said, 3 "the lia- 
 bility of any one, other than the party actually guilty 
 of a wrongful act, proceeds on the maxim ' qui facit 
 per alium facit per se.' " 4 
 
 1 The Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, L. K. 1 H. L. 115. 
 
 1 Pickard v. Smith, 10 C B. N. S. 470, 100 E. C. L.; Bower v. Peate, 1 Q 
 B. D. 326. 
 
 3 Reedie v. L. & K W. Ry., Ilobbitt v. Same, 4 Ex. 243. 
 
 * See, also, the judgment of Lord Cranworth in Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid 
 3 Macq. H. L. 282. 
 7
 
 98 FOR WHOSE ACTS THE RAILWAY IS LIABLE. 
 
 II. SPECIAL AND GENERAL AGENCY. 
 
 The relation between the railway and the actual wrongdoer may be 
 either a special agency, or that general agency which the law charac- 
 terizes as that of master and servant. 
 
 98. In the case of a special agency the railway can 
 be made liable only by proof of a delegation of authority 
 to do the particular act which is the cause of the injury, 
 or by a subsequent ratification of its performance. 
 Where the act is committed by a servant, the liability 
 of the railway is fixed if the act be within the scope 
 of, and be done in the exercise of, the servant's dele- 
 gated authority. 
 
 III. CLASSIFICATION OF THE PERSONS FOR WHOSE ACTS 
 RAILWAYS ARE LIABLE. 
 
 99. The persons for whose acts causing injury rail- 
 ways are liable, may be classified as follows : 
 
 1. Servants of the railway, including under that term 
 all of the railway's officers and employes of every 
 grade. 
 
 2. Independent contractors. 
 
 3. Other corporations and individuals, including con- 
 necting railways, owners of cars run over the line, les- 
 see railways, etc.
 
 LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR-' ACTS'- OF "SE RVAN"rS. 99 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR 
 SERVANTS. 
 
 I. The general nature of a master's liability for the acts of a servant. 
 II. The relation of master and servant must in fact exist. 
 
 III. The act must be within the scope of the servant's employment. 
 
 IV. If the relation exists, and if the act be within the scope of the employ 
 
 ment, it is not material that the master did not order the particulai 
 act. 
 V. The liability of the railway for its servants' trespasses. 
 VI. The liability of the railway for its servants' wilful acts. 
 
 I. THE GENERAL NATURE OF A MASTER'S LIABILITY 
 FOR THE ACTS OF A SERVANT. 
 
 The maxim " respondeat superior " means that a railway, like other 
 masters, is civiliter responsible for the acts of its servants if the par- 
 ticular act causing the injury be within the scope of, and be done in 
 the exercise of, the servant's delegated authority. 
 
 100. The general rule is that a railway, like other 
 masters, is legally responsible for an injury done by an 
 act of its servant if the particular act be within the 
 scope of, and be done in the exercise of, the servant's 
 delegated authority. 1 
 
 1 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. 266, 4 Jur. N. S. 767 ; Randle- 
 son v. Murray, 8 A. & E. 109, 35 E. C. L. ; Yarborough v. Bank of England, 16 
 East. 6 ; Whitfield v. S. E. Ry., 1 El. Bl. & El. 115, 96 E. C. L. ; Limpus v. 
 London Genl. Omnibus Co., 1 II. & C. 526 ; Green v. Same, 7 C. B. N. S. 290, 
 97 E. C. L. ; Seymour v. Greenwood, 6 H. & N. 359 ; Lawson v. The Bank of 
 London, 18 C. B. 84, 86 E. C. L.; E. C. Ry. v. Broom, 6 Ex. 314 ; Chilton v. 
 L. & C. Ry., 16 M. & W. 212; Smith v. B. & S. Gas Light Co., 1 Ad. & El. 
 526, 28 E. C. L. ; Patten v. Rea, 2 C. B. N. S. 606, 89 E. C. L. ; Goodman v. 
 Kennell, 3 C. & P. 167, 14 E. C. L.; Page v. Defries, 7 B. & S. 137 ; Shaw ». 
 Reed, 9 W. & S. 72 ; N. Y. & W. Tel. Co. r. Dryburgh, 35 Penna. St. 298 ; P. 
 & R. R. R. v. Derby, 14 How. 469.
 
 100 GEKEKALMIVJEE OF LIABILITY FOE SERVANTS. 
 
 101. The reason of the rule is nowhere more clearly 
 explained than hy Lord Cranworth, 1 who said : " Where 
 an injury is occasioned to any one by the negligence of 
 another, if the person injured seeks to charge with its 
 consequences any person other than him who actually 
 caused the damage, it lies on the person injured to show 
 that the circumstances were such as to make that other 
 person responsible. In general, it is sufficient for the 
 purpose to show that the person whose neglect caused 
 the injury was at the time when it was occasioned 
 acting not on his own account, but in the course of his 
 employment as a servant in the business of a master, 
 and that the damage resulted from the servant so em- 
 ployed not having conducted his master's business with 
 due care. In such a case the maxim ' respondeat supe- 
 rior ■ ' prevails, and the master is responsible. Thus, if 
 a servant driving his master's carriage along the high 
 way carelessly runs over a bystander, or, if a game- 
 keeper employed to kill game carelessly fires at a hare 
 so as to shoot a person passing on the ground, or, if a 
 workman employed by a builder in building a house 
 negligently throws a stone or brick from a scaffold and 
 so hurts a passer-by ; in all these cases (and instances 
 might be multiplied indefinitely) the person injured 
 has a right to treat the wrongful or careless act as the 
 act of the master : Qui facit per alium faeit per se. If 
 the master himself had driven his carriage improperly, 
 or fired carelessly, or negligently thrown the stone or 
 brick, he would have been directly responsible, and the 
 law does not permit him to escape liability because the 
 act complained of was not done with his own hand. 
 He is considered as bound to guarantee third persons 
 against all hurt arising from the carelessness of himself, 
 
 1 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. 282.
 
 RELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT AS A FACT. 101 
 
 or of those acting under his orders, in the course of his 
 business. Third persons cannot, or, at all events, may 
 not, know whether the particular injury complained of 
 was the act of the master or the act of the servant. A 
 person sustaining injury in any of the modes I have 
 suggested has a right to say : ' I was no party to your 
 carriage being driven along the road, to your shooting 
 near the public highway, and to your being engaged in 
 building a house. If you choose to do, or cause to be 
 done, any of these acts, it is to you, and not to your 
 servants, I must look for redress, if mischief happens to 
 me as their consequence.' A large portion of the ordi- 
 nary acts of life are attended with some risk to third 
 persons, and no one has a right to involve others in 
 risks without their consent. This consideration is alone 
 sufficient to justify the wisdom of the rule which makes 
 the person by whom, or by whose orders, these risks 
 are incurred, responsible to third persons for any ill 
 consequences resulting from want of due skill or 
 caution." The reason of the rule, therefore, is, that 
 the master who has made choice of an incompetent or 
 careless servant ought, in justice, to indemnify those who 
 are not parties to the contract of service, and who have 
 been injured in the course of the servant's action in 
 the exercise of the authority delegated to him by his 
 master. 
 
 II. THE RELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT MUST IN 
 FACT EXIST. 
 
 The rule does not apply to cases where the railway does not stand in 
 the character of employer to the person by ivhose act the injury has 
 been occasioned. 
 
 102. In order, to render the railway liable for the 
 act of a servant, it must be shown that the relation of
 
 102 LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF POSTAL CLERKS, ETC. 
 
 master and servant in fact exists. 1 The railway is, 
 therefore, not liable if it does not stand in the character 
 of employer to the party by whose act the injury has 
 been occasioned. 2 Thus, a railway is not liable for in- 
 juries caused to a person while at work on a station 
 platform by the negligent act of a postal agent, trans- 
 ported under contract with the Post-Office Department, 
 in throwing a mail bag from the mail car of a passing 
 train, it being proven that it was the usage of business 
 for the mail bag to be thrown off at a point some two 
 hundred feet away from the station, and that the rail- 
 way had, therefore, no reason to anticipate that the 
 mail bag would be thrown on the station platform. 3 In 
 other cases, 4 the railway was held liable to passengers 
 who, while waiting for a train on a station platform, 
 were injured by mail bags thrown by postal agents, it 
 being proven that the railway had reason to know that 
 mail bags were habitually thrown upon that platform 
 from passing trains, and the railway being bound to 
 guard its passengers against such injuries, whomsoever 
 might be the person w T hose act caused the injury. These 
 
 1 Mitchell v. Crassweller, 13 C. B. 237, 76 E. C. L. ; Joel v. Morison, 6 C. & 
 P. 501, 25 E. C. L ; Sleath v. Wilson, 9 C. & P. 607, 38 E. C. L. ; Lamb v. 
 Ptilk, Id. 629 ; Bard v. Yohn, 26 Penna. St. 4S2 ; Storey v. Ashton, L. R. 4 
 Q. B. 476 ; Rayner v. Mitchell, 2 C. P. D. 357 ; Burns v. Poulson, L. R. 8 
 C. P. 563 ; Venables v. Smith, 2 Q. B. D. 279 ; Lyons v. Martin, 8 A. & E. 
 502, 35 E. C. L. ; McKenzie v. McLeod, 10 B. 385, 25 E. C. L. ; Williams 
 v. Jones, 3 H. & C. 602 ; Coleman v. Riches, 16 C. B. 104, 81 E. C. L. ; Stevens 
 v. Woodward, 6 Q. B. D. 318. 
 
 2 Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 547, 12 E. C. L. ; Quarman v. Bennett, 6 M. 
 & W. 499 ; Hughes v. Boyer, 9 Watts 556 ; Reedie v. L. & N. W. Ry., Hobbit 
 v. Same, 4 Ex. 243; Milligan v. Wedge, 12 A. & E. 737, 40 E. C. L.; Rapson 
 v. Cubitt, 9 M. & W. 710 ; Lucas v. Mason,, L. R. 10 Ex. 251 ; Murray v. Currie, 
 L. R. 6 C. P. 24; Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., 2 C. P. D. 205; 
 Stevens v. Armstrong, 2 Selden 435 ; McCullough v. Shoneman, 14 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases 395 ; Hemingway v. McCullough, 15 Id. 328. 
 
 3 Muster v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 61 Wise. 325, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 113. 
 
 4 Snow v. F. R. R., 136 Mass. 552, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 161 ; Carpenter 
 P. B. & A. R. R., 97 N.Y. 494, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 331.
 
 LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF VOLUNTEERS. 103 
 
 cases agree, not only in holding the postal agents not to 
 be servants of the railway, but also in treating as the 
 test of the railway's liability its failure to guard those 
 who are lawfully upon its station platform against 
 dangers which may reasonably be regarded as likely to 
 occur. 
 
 103. Nor is a railway liable for the acts of a volun- 
 teer assisting its servants, as, for instance, for the negli- 
 gence of passengers in assisting other passengers to 
 alight j 1 nor for advice given by passengers to another 
 passenger to leap from a moving train ; 2 or to leave a 
 train at a place other than a station ; 3 nor is the railway 
 to be held liable for the negligent act of a person en- 
 gaged as his assistant by a servant to whom the railway 
 has not delegated the power of employing an assistant. 4 
 Whether or not the person causing the injury be a ser- 
 vant of the railway is, of course, a question of fact for 
 the jury. 5 
 
 104. The test of the existence of the relation of master 
 and servant is to be found not in the payment of the 
 servant's wages by the railway, but in the exercise by the 
 railway of authority in appointing the servant, in di- 
 recting his acts, in receiving the benefit of those acts, and 
 in reserving the power of dismissing the servant. 6 
 
 1 Burrows v. Erie Ry., 63 N. Y. 556 ; Morrison v. Erie Ry., 56 Id. 302 ; O. & 
 N. Ry. v. Stratton, 78 111. 88. 
 
 2 Filer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 59 N. Y. 351. 
 
 3 Frost v. G. T. R. R., 10 Allen 387 ; C. & I. R. R. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408. 
 * Jewell v. G. T. Ry., 55 N. H. 84. 
 
 5 P. R. R. v. Spicker, 105 Penna. St. 142. 
 
 6 Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 547, 12 E. C. L. ; Quarman v. Bennett, 6 M. 
 & W. 41)0 ; Purnell v. Gh W. Ry.. mentioned by Melish, L. J., in 2 C. P. D. 
 210 ; Holmes v. Onion, 2 C. B. N. S. 790, 89 E. C. L. ; Fenton v. City of Dublin 
 Steam Packet Co., 8 A. & E. 835, 35 E. C. L. ; Dalyell v. Tyrer, El. Bl. & El. 
 890, 96 E. C. L., 28 L. J. Q. B. 25 ; Jones v. Mayor, etc., of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. 
 D. 890; Fletcher v. Braddick, 5 Bos. & Pul. 182; Sproul v. Hemmingway, 14 
 Pick. 1 ; Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., 2 C. P. D. 205 ; Little v. Hacket, 
 116 U. S. 366.
 
 104 the scope of employment. 
 
 iii. the act must be within the scope of the 
 servant's employment. 
 
 In order to render the railway liable for the act of a servant, it must 
 also be shoicn that the particular act which caused the injury was 
 within the scope of the servant's employment. 
 
 105. Where the relation of master and servant exists 
 between the railway and the person whose act is the 
 cause of injury to another person, the railway is not 
 liable if the servant in causing the injury is not acting 
 within the scope of his employment. Thus, 1 a tenant 
 in possession of a house was held not to be liable to the 
 owner of the house for the act of a servant who, being 
 employed to light a fire in a fire-place, undertook to 
 clean the chimney by burning it out, and in so doing- 
 set fire to the house. So one, 2 to whom another had 
 loaned his shed, in order that a sign-board might be 
 made therein, was held in the Exchequer Chamber not 
 to be liable for the act of a carpenter, who, while en- 
 gaged in making the sign-board, lit his pipe and dropped 
 the match, thereby setting fire to and burning the shed. 
 This doctrine is also illustrated by the cases of injury 
 done by servants who, entrusted with their employers' 
 horses for the doing of errands, turn aside to accomplish 
 some purpose of their own, and while accomplishing 
 that injure some one else. The test in cases of this class 
 is that put by Maule, J., 3 who says, "the master is liable, 
 even though the servant, in the performance of the duty, 
 is guilty of a deviation or a failure to perform it in the 
 strictest and most convenient manner; but when the 
 servant, instead of doing that which he is employed to 
 do, does something which he is not employed to do at 
 
 1 McKenzie v. McLeod, 10 B. & C. 385, 25 E. C. L. 
 
 2 Williams v. Jones, 3 H. & C. G02. 
 
 3 Mitchell v. CrassweDer, 13 C. B. 237, 76 E. C. L.
 
 THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT. 105 
 
 all, then the master cannot be said to do it by his ser- 
 vant, and therefore he is not responsible for the negli- 
 gence of the servant in doing it." Upon this principle, 
 a sleeping-car company was held not to be liable for 
 injuries caused to one standing on a station platform, by 
 the act of the porter of a sleeping-car in throwing, for 
 his personal convenience, a bundle of soiled clothes from 
 a moving car. 1 
 
 106. But the fact that a railway servant has for a 
 considerable length of time performed a certain duty is 
 evidence to go to the jury that in so doing he was acting 
 by the express or implied assent of the railway, thus, 2 
 a flagman, not employed by the railway to watch a main 
 line crossing, but accustomed to warn persons about to 
 cross the main line, having invited the plaintiff to cross 
 when the line was not clear, and the plaintiff having 
 beeu injured, it was held that "the fact that he had uni- 
 formly performed such duty for several years was com- 
 petent evidence to be submitted to the jury as tending 
 to prove that he was so acting by the express or implied 
 assent of the railway." 
 
 IV. IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT THE MASTER DID NOT 
 ORDER THE PARTICULAR ACT. 
 
 Where the relation of master and servant exists, and where the act 
 causing the injury is within the scope of the servant's employment, 
 it is not material that the master did not order or even know of the 
 doing of the particular act, or that in doing the act, or in the man- 
 ner of its performance, the servant disobeyed the express injunctions 
 of the master. 
 
 107. If the relation of master and servant exist, and if 
 the act causing the injury be within the scope of the ser- 
 
 1 Walton v. N. Y. C. S. C. Co., 139 Mass. 556, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 600, note. 
 
 2 Peck v. M. C. Ry., Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 257.
 
 10G LIABILITY FOR A SERVANT'S TRESPASSES. 
 
 vant's employment, it is not material that the master 
 did not order or even know of the doing of the particu- 
 lar act. 1 This view is clearly stated by Willes, J., 
 in a case 2 where a bank was held liable for a fraudulent 
 misrepresentation made by its cashier in the course of 
 business. That learned judge said : " the general rule 
 is that the master is answerable for every such wrong 
 of the servant or agent as is committed in the course of 
 the service and for the master's benefit, although no 
 express command or privity of the master be proved," 
 and after referring to specific instances, he adds : " in 
 all these cases it may be said, as it was said here, that 
 the master has not authorized the act. It is true he has 
 not authorized the particular act, but he has put the 
 agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he must 
 be answerable for the manner in which the agent has 
 conducted himself in doing the business which it was 
 the act of his master to place him in." 
 
 V. THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY FOR ITS SERVANTS' 
 TRESPASSES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY 
 DELEGATED TO THEM. 
 
 108. Nor will the railway escape liability, if in doing 
 the act or in the manner of its performance, the servant 
 disobey the express injunctions of his superior officers, 
 provided that the act be of that class with whose per- 
 formance the servant is charged. Thus, in 3 a case which 
 Pigott, B., has characterized as " very near the line," a 
 railway was held liable for the act of its porter in pull- 
 ing the plaintiff out of a railway carriage about to start, 
 because he believed the plaintiff was in a wrong car- 
 
 1 Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 259 ; Huzzey v. Field, 
 2 C. fcT. & R. 432; The Thetis, L. R. 2 Ad. &Ec. 365; Johnson v. C. V.R. R., 
 56 Vt. 707. 
 
 2 Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. 265. 
 8 Bayley v. M. S. & L. Ry., L. R. 7 C. P. 415, 8 Id. 148.
 
 LIABILITY FOR A SERVANT'S TRESPASSES. 107 
 
 riage, although the plaintiff was, in fact, in his right 
 carriage, it being proven that while the rules of the com- 
 pany required the porters to prevent passengers from 
 going by wrong trains, they did not expressly direct 
 them to remove a passenger from a carriage. So 1 a 
 railway has been held liable for the act of a brakeman 
 in removing a passenger from a car reserved for ladies, 
 it being the duty of the brakeman to notify the passen- 
 ger that the car was reserved. So 2 a railway has been 
 held liable for the death of a passenger resulting from 
 his wrongful and forcible removal from a car by its 
 conductor. So 3 a railway has been held liable for its 
 engine-driver's negligent blowing of a whistle in dis- 
 obedience of the railway's regulations. 
 
 Where the particular act is done in furtherance of the general pur- 
 pose of the railway, and is within the scope of the servant's author- 
 ity, the railway is liable, even though the act be a trespass. 
 
 109. "Where the particular act is done in furtherance 
 of the general purposes of the railway, and is within the 
 scope of the servant's authority, the railway is liable, 
 even though the act be a trespass. 4 Thus, 5 in a case 
 where the plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's 
 omnibus, and was removed by the conductor, a servant 
 of the defendant, in such a manner that the plaintiff fell 
 into the road and was severely injured, Pollock, C. B., 
 said : " I do not believe he intended to do any mischief, 
 but his want of care clearly was the cause of the mis- 
 chief, and therefore I think the effect of the evidence is 
 that the servant, by carelessly executing his master's 
 
 » Peck v. X. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 70 X. Y. 587. 
 
 2 P. R. R. v. Vandiver, 42 Penna. St. 365. 
 
 3 P. W. & B. R. R. v. Brannen, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 227. 
 
 1 Yarborongh p. Bank of England, Hi East. 6 ; Whitfield v. S. E. Ry., 1 El. 
 Bl. & El. 115, 96 E. C. L. ; Green v. L. G. Omnil us Co., 7 C. B. N. S. 290, 97 
 E. C. L. ; Limpus v. S:une, 1 II. & C. 526 ; Roe v. B. L. & C. J. Ry., 7 Ex. 36. 
 
 5 Seymour v. Greenwood, 7 II. & N. 354.
 
 108 LIABILITY FOR A SERVANT'S TRESPASSES. 
 
 commands, caused the mischief complained of, and that 
 is what I should have found had I been on the jury. 
 There is no doubt that the law on this subject was once 
 very much confused, and when McManus v. Crickett 1 
 was decided, the law had not been settled. I 
 think the view we take of this case is quite in conform- 
 ity with all the more recent decisions. Public safety 
 and private convenience require that we should so de- 
 cide ; for if we were to hold that a railway company is 
 not to be responsible for the act of its servant, causing 
 damage to a third person, unless it be an act done in the 
 mere negligent obedience to the orders of the company, 
 there would be no protection to lite public." And Mar- 
 tin, B., added : " I have no doubt that if the conductor 
 used unnecessary violence in removing the plaintiff, the 
 master would be responsible. If, by an act done by a 
 servant within the scope of his ordinary employment, 
 another person is injured, that person may maintain an 
 action against the master ; and the act of removing the 
 plaintiff from the omnibus was within the scope of the 
 conductor's ordinary employment. * * * The criterion 
 is not whether the master has given the authority to do 
 the particular act, but whether the servant does it in the 
 ordinary course of his employment." 
 
 110. The railway is, therefore, liable for the acts of its 
 conductors, brakemen, guards, or porters, in wrongfully 
 ejecting either passengers or trespassers from its trains, 
 or in rightfully ejecting such persons with unnecessary 
 force ; 2 and for the acts of a station master in ejecting 
 
 1 1 East. 107. 
 
 * Seymour v. Greenwood, 7 H. & N. 354 ; Bayley v. M. S. & L. Ry., L. R. 7, 
 C. P. 415, 8 Id. 148 ; P. R. R. v. Vandiver, 42 Penna. St. 365 ; R. R. v. Finney, 
 10 Wise. 3S8 ; Weed v. P. R. R., 17 N. Y. 362 ; Moore v. F. R. R., 4 Gray 465 ; 
 Holmes v. Wakefield, 12 Allen 580 ; L. N. A. & C. E. R. v. Dunkin, 92 Ind. 
 601, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 422 ; State v. Ross, 2 Dutcher 224 ; Coleman v. 
 N. Y. & X. II. R. R., 106 Mass. 160; Brokaw v. N. J. R. R., 3 Vroom 328; 
 C. & A. R. R. v. Flagg, 43 111. 364 ; E. & C. R. R. v. Banin, 26 Ind. 70 ; G. W.
 
 LIABILITY FOE EXPULSIONS. 109 
 
 with unnecessary violence one who was loitering in the 
 station ; l and for injuries caused by assaults by its ser- 
 vants upon passengers while the servants are acting 
 within the scope of their authority. 2 
 
 111. Some of the cases 3 hold that the forcible removal 
 of trespassers from a railway train does not fall within the 
 implied authority of train hands, and that to render the 
 railway liable for damages done by such an act an ex- 
 press authority must be shown. The doctrine of most 
 of the cases, however, is, that wherever a railway servant 
 is put in charge of any property of the railway, as a 
 station master in charge of a station, or a conductor in 
 charge of a train, or an engine-driver or fireman in 
 charge of an engine, or a brake man in charge of a car, 
 that servant is necessarily charged with the duty of pro- 
 tecting that particular property, and he is, therefore, 
 for that purpose vested with an implied authority to re- 
 move trespassers therefrom ; and if he makes a mistake, 
 either by removing a person who is rightfully therein 
 or thereon, or by using unnecessary violence in the re- 
 moval of a trespasser, the railway must be held liable 
 for all such injuries as result, in the one case from the 
 
 R. R. v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305 ; Jackson v. S. A. R. R., 47 N. Y. 274 ; Kline 
 v. C. P. R. R., 39 Cal. 537 ; Higgins v. W. T. & R. R., 46 N. Y. 23 ; C. C. & I. 
 R. R. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37 ; Sanford v. E. A. R. R., 23 N. Y. 343 ; Marquette 
 v. C. & N. W. Ry., 33 Iowa 562 ; Carter v. L. N. A. & C. R. R., 98 Ind. 522, 22 
 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 360; Kline v. C. P. R. R., 37 Cal. 400; Schultz v. T. 
 A. R. R., 89 N. Y. 242, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 579 ; N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. 
 v. Hoffman, 87 N. Y. 25, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 537 ; Benton v. C. R. I. & 
 P. R. R , 55 Iowa 496. 
 
 1 Johnson v C. R. I. & P. Ry., 58 Iowa 348, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206. 
 
 a Bayley v. M S & L. Ry., L. R. 7, C. P. 415, 8 Id. 148 ; P. R. R. v. Van- 
 diver, 42 Penna. St. 365 ; I. B. & W. Ry v. Burdge, 94 Ind. 46, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 192 ; Ramsden v. B. & A. R. R., 104 Mass. 117 ; Pleenrich v. P. P. 
 C. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 100, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 379 ; W. St. L. & P. Ry. 
 v. Rector, 104 111. 296, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 264. 
 
 8 T. C. Co. v. Heeraan, 86 Penna. St 418 ; Cauley v. P. C. & St. L. Ry., 98 Id. 
 498 ; P. A. & M. P. Ry. v. Donahue, 70 Id. 119 ; Penna. Co. v. Toomey, 91 Id. 
 256; Manon v. C. R. I. & P. Ry., 59 Iowa 428, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 177.
 
 110 LIABILITY FOR TRESPASSES. 
 
 removal, and in the other ease from the unnecessary 
 violence with which that removal is effected. 
 
 112. A railway is also liable for the acts of its ser- 
 vants in the exercise of statutory power conferred upon 
 the railway to arrest persons attempting to defraud them. 1 
 It is held in some cases, that where the railway has no 
 power under its charter to make an arrest, the railway 
 is not liable, for there cannot be an implied authority 
 to its servants to do that which the corporation has no 
 charter power to do. 2 In other cases, 3 it is held that 
 railways are liable for wrongful arrests made by their 
 servants in the mistaken exercise of the authority vested 
 in them by the railway, and that in such a case it con- 
 stitutes no defence to the railway that its agent in doing 
 the act did that which the railway was not authorized 
 by its charter to do, and that which the railway had not 
 empowered its servant to do. Upon the same principle 
 a railway was held liable 4 for the act of its servant in 
 seizing a passenger's luggage to enforce payment of his 
 fire. The doctrine of the last-mentioned class of cases 
 seems to be sound, for, if the person who does the 
 wrongful act be, in fact, a servant of the railway, and 
 if the act be done in furtherance of the general purposes 
 of the railway, and not to accomplish an independent 
 personal purpose on the part of the servant, the railway 
 ought to be held liable therefor, on the ground of an 
 implied delegation to the servant of authority for the 
 
 1 E. C. Ry. v. Broom, 6 Ex. 314 ; Chilton v. L. & C. Ry., 16 M. & W. 212 ; 
 Roe v. B. L. & C. J. Ry., 7 Ex. 3G ; Savaignac v. Roome, 6 T. R. 125 ; Moore 
 v. N. Ry., L. R. 8 Q. B. 36 ; Bank of New South Wales v. Owston, 4 App. Cas. 
 270 ; Edwards v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; Allen v. L. & S. W. Ry., 
 L. R. 6 Q. B. 65 ; Gofi v. G. N. Ry., 3 E. & E. 672, 107 E. C. L. 
 
 2 Poulton v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. 534 ; Emerson v. N. N. Co., 2 
 Ont. (Can.) 528. 
 
 3 Lynch v. M. E. Ry., 90 N. Y. 77, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 119 ; E. & T. 
 II. R. R. v. McKee, 99 Ind. 519, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 366. 
 
 * Ramsden v. B. & A. R. R., 104 Mass. 117.
 
 LIABILITY FOR SERVANTS' ACTS. Ill 
 
 performance of the particular act, and the doctrine of 
 ultra vires cannot be held to negative the implication of 
 such a delegation, unless, in the words of Kelly, C. B., 
 in his dissenting judgment in Mill v. Hawker, 1 corpora- 
 tions are "not to be liable for any tort at all committed 
 or authorized by them." 
 
 113. A railway is liable for an assault committed by 
 a servant under the orders of an executive officer of the 
 company, thus : where a servant of one railway was 
 wounded by a pistol shot fired by some one of the ser- 
 vants of another railway, acting under the orders of the 
 vice-president and general manager of their line, in an 
 attempt to take forcible possession of the line of the 
 first-mentioned railway, the last-mentioned railway was 
 held liable in damages to the injured person. 2 
 
 114. A railway is also liable for the act of its servant 
 in attempting to bribe an adverse witness, the servant 
 being engaged to prepare for trial actions against the 
 company, and the fact of such attempted bribery being 
 admissible in evidence against the company on the trial 
 of an action for injuries to the person, in which action 
 the person sought to be bribed was a witness. 3 
 
 115. Railways are not liable for a mistaken exercise 
 of judgment upon the part of their servants in an emer- 
 gency ; 4 nor, for a failure upon the part of their ser- 
 vants to act with the utmost possible promptitude 
 when the circumstances are such as to afford no time 
 for deliberation ; thus, 5 where a passenger railway car 
 was approaching a switch, and the attention of the 
 driver was necessarily directed to the switch, and a boy 
 
 1 L. R. 9 Ex. 309, 10 Id. 92. 
 
 2 D. & R. G. Ry. v. Harris, New Mex. , 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 142. 
 8 C. C. Ry. v. McMahon, 103 111. 485, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. G8. 
 
 * Banks v. II. St. Ry., 136 Mass. 485, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 139 ; Bell v. 
 H. & St. J. R. R, 72 Mo. 50, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 580. 
 6 H. M. & F. P. Ry. v. Kelley, 102 Fenna. St. 115.
 
 112 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 
 
 jumped on the front platform, remained there about 
 thirty seconds, and in jumping off was injured, it was 
 held that there was no negligence on the part of the 
 defendant, Green, J., saying : " where the sole basis 
 of liability is the omission to perform a certain duty 
 suddenly and unexpectedly arising, we think there 
 ought to be at least a consciousness of the facts which 
 raise the duty on the part of the person who is charged 
 with its performance, and a reasonable opportunity to 
 discharge it." 1 
 
 VI. THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY FOR ITS SER- 
 VANTS' WILFUL ACTS. 
 
 A railway is not liable for the wilful act of its servant beyond the 
 scope of that servant's general authority, unless it be proven that 
 there was an antecedent special authorization or subsequent ratifica- 
 tion. 
 
 116. A railway is not liable for the wilful act of its 
 servant beyond the scope of that servant's general 
 authority, unless it can be proven that there was an 
 antecedent special authorization or a subsequent ratifi- 
 cation. 2 The per curiam judgment of the King's Bench 
 
 1 Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 98 E. C. L. ; Brown v. French, 14 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 412; Gumz v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 52 Wise. 672, 5 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 583 ; Maschek v. St. L. R. R., 71 Mo. 276, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 38 ; Dunleavy v. C, R. T. & P. Ry., Iowa , 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 542 ; Brown v. C. & B. St. Ry., 49 Mich. 153, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 385 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Smith, 46 Mich. 504, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 535 ; 
 Jenkins v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 41 Wise. 112. 
 
 2 McManus v. Crickett, 1 East. 106; Croft v. Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590, 6 E. 
 C. L.; Lawson v. Bank of London, 18 C. B. 84, 86 E. C. L.; Edwards v. L. & 
 N. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; Walker v. S. E. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 ; E. C. Ry. 
 v. Broom, 6 Ex. 314 ; Roe v. B. L. & C. J. Ry., 7 Id. 36 ; Smith v. B. & S. Gas 
 Light Co., 1 A. & E. 526, 28 E. C. L. ; Hays v. H. G. N. R. R., 46 Tex. 280 ; 
 G. H. & S. A. R. R. v. Donahoe, 56 Id. 162, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 287 ; 
 Isaacs v. T. A. R. R., 47 N. Y. 122 ; R. T. Co. v. Vanderbilt, 2 N. Y. 479 ; C. 
 & N. W. Ry. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205 ; I. C. R. R. v. Downey, 18 111. 259.
 
 LIABILITY FOE WILFUL ACTS. 113 
 
 in Croft v. Alison, 1 states the distinction thus: "if a 
 servant driving a carriage, in order to effect some pur- 
 pose of his own, wantonly strikes the horses of another 
 person, and produce an accident, the master will not be 
 liable. But if, in order to perform his master's orders, 
 he strike, but injudiciously, and in order to extricate 
 himself from a difficulty, that will be negligent and 
 careless conduct for which the master will be liable, 
 being an act done in pursuance of the servant's employ- 
 ment." 
 
 117. Of course the railway is liable for a wilful 
 assault by a servant beyond the scope of his employ- 
 ment, if it subsequently ratifies the act. Proof of rati- 
 fication can be deduced from the fact that the railway, 
 with knowledge of its servant's commission of an un- 
 authorized assault on a passenger, has retained him in 
 its service and promoted him.' J But 3 it has been held 
 that a promise by a secretary of a railway to look into 
 the matter, and the subsequent offer of a pecuniary com- 
 promise of the plaintiff's claim, was not evidence of a 
 ratification by the railway of the unauthorized act of a 
 servant in arresting the plaintiff for non-payment of fare;, 
 and the fact that the attorney of the railway attended 
 before a magistrate at the hearing of a charge against 
 the plaintiff, was held not to be a ratification of the un- 
 authorized act of a servant in taking the plaintiff into 
 custody and carrying him before a magistrate. 4 
 
 118. It is, however, laid down by some authorities 
 that the railway is liable for wilful assaults by its servants, 
 even beyond the line of their duty, as, for instance, for 
 
 1 4 B. & Aid. 590, 6 E. C. L. 
 
 2 Bass v. C. & N. W. By., 39 Wise. 636, 42 Id. 654; Gasway v. A. & W. P 
 Ry., 58 Ga. 216. 
 
 3 Roe v. B. L. & C. J. Ry., 7 Ex. 36. 
 
 4 E. C. Ry. v. Broom, 6 Ex. 314. 
 
 8
 
 114 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 
 
 the act of a conductor in kissing a female passenger ; x 
 for the act of a brakeman, who, when accused of theft 
 by a passenger, struck the passenger in the face ; 2 for 
 the act of a conductor in calling a passenger out of a 
 train at a way station and beating him ; 3 for the act of 
 a brakeman in throwing water on a passenger while 
 standing in the doorway of a car ; 4 for the act of a con- 
 ductor in pointing a loaded revolver at a passenger, 
 and forcing him to leap from a moving train ; 5 for the 
 act of a conductor in wilfully insulting and assaulting 
 a passenger, when the conductor was not engaged in 
 the performance of his duties ; 6 for the act of an engine- 
 driver in sounding the whistle of his engine unneces- 
 sarily, and with the intention of frightening horses ; 7 
 for insulting and offensive epithets 8 applied by a railway 
 servant to a passenger. 9 
 
 119. On the other hand, it has been held that a rail- 
 way is not liable for the act of a servant, who, having 
 been placed at a car door to resist the entrance of pas- 
 sengers without tickets, assaulted a passenger who at- 
 tempted to force an entrance; 10 nor for the act of a 
 
 1 Craker v. C. & N. W. Ry., 36 Wise. 657. 
 
 2 C k E. R. R. v. Flexman, 103 111. 546, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 354. 
 
 3 Peeples v. B. & A. R. R., 60 Ga. 281.. 
 
 4 T. H. & I. R. R. v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 178. 
 
 5 Gallena v. II. S. R. R., 13 Fed. Rep. 116. 
 
 6 Goddard v. G. T. Ry., 57 Me. 202 ; Hanson v. E. & N. R. R., 62 Id. 84; 
 Maleck v. T. G. R. R., 57 Mo. 18 ; Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush 147. 
 
 7 C. B. & Q. R. R. v. Dickson, 63 111. 151, 7 Am. Ry. Rep. 45. 
 
 8 Bryant v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 63 Iowa 464, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 335. 
 
 9 See, generally, Pendleton v. Kinsley, 3 Clif. 416 ; Sherley v. Billings, 8 
 Bush 147; Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason 242; Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 
 180, 202; Kieto v. Clark, 1 Clif. 145 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277 ; 
 Stewart v. B. & C. Ry., 90 N. Y. 588, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 127, overruling 
 Isaacs v. Third Ave. R. R., 47 N. Y. 122 ; I. & G. N. Ry. v. Kentle, Tex. , 
 16 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 337 ; Jackson v. Second Ave. R. R, 47 N. Y. 275 ; 
 Rounds v. D., L. & W. R. R., 64 Id. 137 ; Day v. B. C. R. R., 76 Id. 593 ; Mc- 
 Kinley v. C. & N. W. Ry., 44 Iowa 314 ; Gasway v. A. & W. P. R. R, 58 Ga. 216. 
 
 10 Priest v. H. R. R. R., 65 N. Y. 589.
 
 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 115 
 
 servant in striking with a hatchet a passenger who had 
 provoked a quarrel with him, 1 nor for the act of a fire- 
 man in inducing a boy to assist in watering an engine, 2 
 nor for the act of a brakeman in ordering a boy to move 
 a load of lumber on a car in motion, 3 nor for the act of 
 a brakeman in throwing a stone at a boy trespassing on a 
 train, 4 nor for the act of a conductor in forcing a tres- 
 passing boy to jump from a moving car, 5 nor for the act 
 of a driver of a street car in striking a boy and knock- 
 ing him off the car, 6 nor for the act of a conductor in 
 pushing a trespasser off a moving car, 7 nor for the act 
 of an engine-driver in purposely driving his engine over 
 cattle on the line, 8 nor for the act of the driver of a street 
 car in wilfully running his car into a wagon, 9 nor for 
 the act of a brakeman in abducting a boy from his home 
 and carrying him away on a train. 10 
 
 120. The reported actions against railways for wilful 
 assaults committed by their servants may be classified 
 in three categories : first, those in which the person in- 
 jured was not a passenger of the railway ; second, those 
 in which the person injured was a passenger, and the 
 assault was committed by the railway's servant at a time 
 when he was engaged in the performance of his duty to 
 the railway, as, for instance, when collecting the passen- 
 ger's fare, or when preventing the passenger from enter- 
 ing, or remaining, in a particular car; and third, those 
 
 1 L. M. R. R. v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110. 
 
 1 Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Penna. St. 210. 
 
 3 Sherman v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 * Towanda Coal Co. v. 1 Iceman, 86 Penna. St. 418. 
 
 i Cauley v. P. C & St. L. Ry., 98 Penna. St. 498. 
 
 6 P. A & M. P. Ry. v. Donahue, 70 Penna. St. 119. 
 
 7 Penna. Co. v. Toomey, 91 Penna. St. 256 ; Marion v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 59 
 Iowa 428, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 177. 
 
 8 I. C. R. R. v. Downey, 18 III. 259. 
 
 9 Wood o. D. C. S. Ry., 52 Mich. 402, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 129. 
 
 w Gilliam v. S. & N. A. R. R., 70 Ala. 268, 15 Am. & Eng. P.. R. Cas. 138.
 
 116 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 
 
 in which the person injured was a passenger of the rail- 
 way, and the assault committed by the servant was not 
 contemporaneous with that servant's performance of his 
 duty to the railway. In each category the decisions are 
 conflicting. In those of the first category, the railway 
 is generally held not to be liable, and in those of the 
 second and third categories, the railway is generally 
 held to be liable. A careful consideration of this ques- 
 tion upon principle will satisfy any one that the true 
 rule of decision in every case, where it is sought to hold 
 a railway responsible for the act of a servant causing 
 injury to a person, whether that person be or be not 
 a passenger, or whatever be the relation in which he 
 stands to the railway, is to be found in the answer to 
 the question, was the servant in doing the act perform- 
 ing, however negligently and however wrongfully, his 
 duty to the railway, or was he accomplishing some pur- 
 pose of his own, which had no necessary connection with 
 the performance of his duty to the railway? If the 
 former, the railway is liable ; if the latter, the railway 
 is not liable. In Johnson v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 1 where 
 the railway was held liable for the act of its station 
 master in ejecting the plaintiff from its station house 
 rightfully, but with unnecessary violence, Rothrock, J., 
 thus states the rule : " the true test by which to deter- 
 mine the liability of the master, or employer, for the 
 negligent or wrongful acts of the servant, or employe, in 
 all this class of. cases is, was the wrongful or negligent 
 act done in the course and scope of the employment of 
 the servant, or agent ? If it was, the employer is liable. 
 But if the employe does any act out of his employment 
 * * the employer is not liable. For example, if an 
 agent, conductor, or other employe should assault a 
 loafer in a waiting-room in a personal quarrel, having 
 
 1 58 Iowa 348, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Gas. 206.
 
 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 117 
 
 no relation to his employment, the company would not 
 be liable in damages." 
 
 121. Many of the cases hold that the railway is liable 
 to its passengers for unauthorized and wilful assaults by 
 its servants when it would not be liable to persons other 
 than passengers for such assaults. The ground of de- 
 cision in such cases is thus stated by Tracy, J.: 1 " By the 
 defendant's contract with the plaintiff, it had undertaken 
 to carry him safely, and to treat him respectfully ; and 
 while a common carrier does not undertake to insure 
 from injury against every possible danger, it does under- 
 take to protect the passenger against any injury arising 
 from the neo;lio;ence or wilful misconduct of its servants 
 while engaged in performing a duty which a carrier 
 owes to the passenger." The fallacy in this reasoning 
 can be readily pointed out. It is based on a misappre- 
 hension of the railway's implied obligation to its pas- 
 sengers. The railway does not insure their safe 
 transportation. It does not warrant to them the security 
 of its line, nor the roadworthiness of its carriages, nor 
 the capability of its servants. The duty of the railway 
 to its passenger is performed to its full measure when 
 the railway exercises the highest possible care in the 
 construction and operation of its line, machinery, and 
 appliances, and in the selection, organization, and dis- 
 cipline of its servants. It is liable to its passengers 
 only for negligence, and it is not negligence upon its 
 part, when a servant who has been carefully selected, 
 and for whose guidance in the performance of his duties 
 judicious regulations have been prescribed, but who is 
 nevertheless human and mortal, and, therefore, to some 
 extent, at least, both fallible and self-willed, does that, 
 in the exercise of his own volition and to serve his own 
 purposes, which the railway has not expressly nor im- 
 
 1 Stewart v. B. & C. E. E., 90 N. Y. 588, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 127.
 
 118 LIABILITY FOR WILFUL ACTS. 
 
 pliedly authorized him to do on its behalf. To hold the 
 railway liable in such a case is not consistent, either 
 with the principles upon which rests the responsibility 
 of railways to their passengers for injuries caused by a 
 failure of their means of transportation, or with those 
 other rules of law of wider application which determine 
 the liability of principals for the acts of their agents. 
 It does not affect the question to argue, as Mr. H. G. 
 Wood has argued, 1 that because a common carrier of 
 goods is absolutely liable for its servants' loss of or 
 wanton injury to the goods which it has contracted to 
 carry, that, therefore, "it would be a singular rule and 
 an absurd one, that did not hold the carriers of pas- 
 sengers" responsible for injuries wilfully inflicted by its 
 servants upon those passengers. It is only necessary, 
 in reply to this view, to refer to the judgment of Mon- 
 tague Smith, J., in Readhead v. Midland Ry., 2 where 
 he shows the essential distinction between the implied 
 obligations of carriers of goods and of passengers. It 
 must be remembered that science has not yet enabled 
 railways to manufacture their servants to order. They 
 must take as those servants sentient human beings, each 
 of whom has an individuality which cannot be altogether 
 repressed. All that the railway can do in the exercise 
 of the highest possible care is to prudently select and 
 train its servants, and to make wise regulations for 
 their government, and when it has done that it is a plain 
 injustice to hold the railway responsible for its servant's 
 wilful and unauthorized act. 
 
 1 Law of Master and Servant 648 et seq., 2 Law of Railroads 1196. 
 
 2 L. R. 4 Q. B. 379.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTE ACTORS. 119 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF EAILWAYS FOE THE ACTS OF INDEPEN- 
 DENT CONTRACTORS. 
 
 I. The general rule of liability for the negligence of contractors. 
 II. The liability for a wrongful act done in pursuance of a contract. 
 
 III. The liability for a contractor's non performance of a duty incumbent 
 
 on the railway. 
 
 IV. The railway's obligation to anticipate negligence on the part of its 
 
 contractor. 
 
 I. THE GENERAL EULE OF LIABILITY FOE THE NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF CONTRACTORS. 
 
 A railway is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor 
 or of his servants in the course of the prosecution of a lawful work. 
 
 122. It often happens, in the course of railway opera- 
 tions, that independent contractors who are not servants 
 of the railway are engaged pro hac vice to perform some 
 specified work of construction, alteration, or repair. 
 The earlier cases held him who had delegated to an- 
 other the performance of any act, or who had contracted 
 with that other for its performance, liable not only for 
 all the acts done by the contractor in the exercise of the 
 delegated authority and in the performance of the con- 
 tract, but also liable for the negligence of the contrac- 
 tor, and of the contractor's servants. Thus, in Bush v. 
 Stein man, 1 the defendant being the owner of a house, 
 contracted with a surveyor to repair it, and the surveyor 
 sublet the contract to a carpenter, who employed a brick- 
 layer, who contracted with a lime-burner for lime, which 
 the lime-burner's servant placed on the highway in 
 
 1 1 Bos. & Tul. 404.
 
 120 THE OLD RULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 front of the house, and the plaintiff, having been in- 
 jured by reason of his carriage being overturned on the 
 lime, brought his action and recovered against the de- 
 fendant, Rooke, J., saying, " the person from whom the 
 whole authority is originally derived, is the person who 
 ought to be answerable, and great inconvenience would 
 follow if it were otherwise." The same view is taken 
 in two other cases, 1 but the doctrine of these cases has 
 long since been overruled. In Laugher v. Pointer, 2 and 
 in Quarraan v. Bennett, 3 where the question was as to lia- 
 bility for the negligence of an independent contractor 
 where the contract had reference to personal property, 
 Bush v. Steinman was sought to be distinguished upon 
 the ground that the contract in question in that case re- 
 lated to fixed property, and that therefore the owner 
 was to be held liable, but this shadowy and unsubstan- 
 tial distinction was rejected and finally overthrown in 
 Keedie v. L. & N. W. By. and Hobbitt v. Same, 4 in which 
 cases the plaintiffs sued under Lord Campbell's Act, as 
 widows of persons who were killed while passing on a 
 highway under a viaduct in course of construction as 
 part of the defendant's line, the accident having re- 
 sulted from the negligence of the workmen employed 
 by a contractor who had undertaken to build the via- 
 duct. The jury having found for the plaintiffs, a rule 
 for a new trial was made absolute, Bolfe, B., saying, 
 " the case of Bush v. Steinman, where the owner of a 
 house was held liable for the act of a servant of a sub- 
 contractor, acting under a builder employed by the 
 owner, was a case of fixed real property. That case was 
 strongly pressed in argument in support of the liability 
 of the defendants, both in Laugher v. Pointer and 
 
 1 Sly v. Edgley, 6 Esp. 6, and in Matthews v. W. L. Waterworks Co., 3 Camp. 
 403. 
 
 2 5 B. & C. 547, 12 E. C. L. 3 6 M. & W. 499. * 4 Ex. 243.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 121 
 
 Quarraan v. Bennett; and as the circumstances of those 
 two cases were such as not to make it necessary to over- 
 rule Bush v. Steinman, if any distinction in point of 
 law did exist, in cases like the present, between fixed 
 property and ordinary movable chattels, it was right to 
 notice the point. But, on full consideration, we have 
 come to the conclusion that there is no such distinction, 
 unless, perhaps, in cases where the act complained of is 
 such as to amount to a nuisance ; and in fact that, accord- 
 ing to the modern decisions, Bush v. Steinman must be 
 laken not to be law, or, at all events, that it cannot be 
 supported on the ground on which the judgment of the 
 court proceeded. * * * Mr. Justice Littledale in his 
 very able judgment in Laugher v. Pointer, observed 
 that the law does not recognize a several liability in two 
 principals who are unconnected. If they are jointly 
 liable, you may sue either, but you cannot have two 
 separately liable. This doctrine is one of general ap- 
 plication, irrespective of the nature of the employment ; 
 and applying the principle to the present case, it would 
 be impossible to hold the present defendants liable, 
 without, at the same time, deciding that the contractors 
 are not liable, which it would be impossible to be con- 
 tended. It remains only to be observed that in none of 
 the more modern cases has the alleged distinction be- 
 tween real and personal property been admitted. Our 
 attention was directed during the argument to the pro- 
 visions of the contract, whereby the defendants had the 
 power of insisting on the removal of careless or incom- 
 petent workmen, and so it was contended they must be 
 responsible for their non-removal. But this power of 
 removal does not seem to us to vary the case. The 
 workman is still the servant of the contractor only, and 
 the fact that the defendants might have insisted on his 
 removal if they thought him careless or unskillful, did
 
 122 MODERN RULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 not make him their servant." In Painter v. Pittsburgh, 1 
 Strong, J., said that Bush v. Steinman "long since 
 ceased to be regarded as a correct enunciation of the 
 law in England, and both its reasoning and authority 
 are denied." 2 
 
 123. The modern doctrine is that if an independent 
 contractor is employed to do a lawful act, the employer 
 not reserving a control over the manner of its perform- 
 ance, and in the course of the work he or his servant 
 commits some casual act of negligence, the employer is 
 not answerable. 3 By force of these principles, a rail- 
 way is not liable for injuries done in the operation of 
 its line while in process of construction by a contractor ; 4 
 but where a passenger is injured while being trans- 
 
 1 46 Penna. St. 213, 221. 
 
 2 See also Hilliard v. Richardson, 3 Gray 349 ; DeForrest v. Wright, 2 
 Mich. 368. 
 
 3 Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B. N. S. 480, 100 E. C. L.; Overton v. Freeman, 
 11 C. B. 867, 73 E. C. L.; Knight v. Fox 5 Ex. 721 ; Allen v. Hayward, 7 Q. 
 
 B. 960, 53 E. C. L. ; Steel v. S. E. Ry., 16 C. B. 550, 81 E. C. L. ; Peachey v. 
 Rowland, 13 C. B. 181, 76 E. C. L.; Brown v. A. C. S. & M. Co., 3 H & C.511; 
 Pearson v. Cox, 2 C. P. D. 369; Rapson v. Cubitt, 9 M. & W. 710; Hilliard 
 r. Richardson, 3 Gray 349 ; Scammon v. Chicago, 25 111. 424 ; School District 
 of Erie v. Fuess, 98 Penna. St. 600 ; Smith v. Simmons, 13 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 242 ; Allen v. Willard, 57 Penna. St. 374 ; Wray v. Evans, 80 Id. 102 ; 
 Milligan v. Wedge, 12 A. & E. 737, 40 E. C. L. ; Murray v. Currie, L. R. 6 C. 
 P. 24 ; Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., L. R. 2 C. P. D. 205 ; Hall v. 
 Smith, 2 Ring. 156 ; as explained by Alderson, B., in Scott v. Mayor of Man- 
 chester, 1 II. & N. 59 ; (Wiggett v. Fox, 11 Ex. 832, as explained by Channell, 
 B., in Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 H. & N. 143, and dissented from by Cockburn, 
 
 C. J., in Rourke v. Colliery Co., 2 C P. D. 205 ;) Painter v. Pittsburgh, 46 
 Penna. St. 213 ; Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Id. 146 ; Erie v. Caulkins, 85 Id. 
 247 ; Borough of Susquehanna Depot v. Simmons, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 362 ; Reed v. Allegheny, 79 Pa. St. 300 ; Barry v. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 121 ; 
 Blake v. Ferris, 5 N. Y. 58 ; N. O. & N. E. R. R. v. Reese, 61 Miss. 581 ; 
 Hughes v. C. & S. Ry., 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 100, and note, Ohio St.; Lin- 
 ton v. Smith, 8 Gray 147 ; DeForrest v. Wright, 2 Mich. 368 ; McCafferty v. 
 S. D. & P. M. R. R., 61 N. Y. 178 ; Boswell v. Laird, 8 Cal. 469 ; Clark v. Fry, 
 8 Ohio St. 358 ; Hofnagle v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R , 55 N. Y. 608 ; King v. 
 N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R-, 66 Id. 181 ; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 Id. 377. 
 
 4 K. C. Ry. v. Fitzsimmons, 18 Kans. 34, 15 Am. Ry. Rep. 220; Cunning- 
 ham v. I. R. R., 51 Tex. 503; U. P. R. R. v. Hause, 1 Wyoming 27.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 123 
 
 ported over a line which is in process of construction 
 by contractors, and which has not been formally re- 
 ceived from the contractors, but the train is manned by 
 servants of the railway, and the passenger's injuries are 
 caused by the negligence of those servants, the railway 
 must be held liable therefor. 1 
 
 Where the railway, having contracted for the performance of a work, 
 has reserved to itself the control both of the result and of the means 
 by which that result is to be accomplished, it is liable for the negli- 
 gence of the contractor and his servants. 
 
 124. Where the railway has contracted for the per- 
 formance of a work, aud has reserved to itself control 
 both of the result and of the means by which that re- 
 sult is to be accomplished, the contractor and his ser- 
 vants are the servants of the railway, and the railway 
 is held liable as master for their acts. 2 In Randleson 
 v. Murray, 3 the defendant was a warehouseman who 
 engaged a master porter to remove a barrel from his 
 warehouse, the master porter employing his own work- 
 men and tackle, and from the negligence of those men 
 the tackle failed, the barrel fell, and the plaintiff was 
 injured. The case as reported does not distinctly show 
 whether the master porter was engaged merely for the 
 particular job or whether he was engaged by the day or 
 week for the removal of other barrels. Coleridge, J., 
 directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff if 
 they considered there had been negligence in the use 
 of the tackle, and a verdict having passed for the plain- 
 tiff, a rule for a new trial was refused, Denman, C J., 
 
 1 Burton v. G II. & S. A. R. R., Gl Tex. 526, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 218. 
 
 2 8 A. & E 109, 35 E. C. L. See also Milligan v. Wedge, 12 A. & E. 737, 40 
 E. C. L.; Sadler v. Ilenlock, 4 El. & Bl 570, 82 E. C. L. ; Blake v. Thirst, 
 2 II. & < :. 20 ; Stone v. Utica, 17 N. Y. 104 ; N. O. M. & C. R. R. v. Harming, 
 15 Wall. 649. 
 
 3 8 A. & E. 109, 35 E. C. L.
 
 124 CONTRACTORS WHEN AGENTS. 
 
 saying : " Had the jury in this case been asked whether 
 the porters, whose negligence occasioned the accident, 
 were the servants of the defendant, there can be no 
 doubt they would have found in the affirmative," and 
 Littledale, J., adding : " It seems to me to make no dif- 
 ference whether the persons whose negligence occasions 
 the injury be the servants of the defendant, paid by 
 daily wages, or be brought to the warehouse by a person 
 employed by the defendant. The latter frequently 
 occurs in a large place like Liverpool, where many per- 
 sons exercise the occupation of a master porter. But 
 the law is the same in each case." In the later case of 
 Milligan v. Wedge, 1 where the defendant, a butcher, 
 having bought a bullock, had engaged a licensed drover 
 to drive it from the Smithfield Market, and the drover 
 employed a boy by whose negligence the bullock escaped 
 and injured the plaintiff, the jury having found specially 
 that the boy was not defendant's servant, but having 
 found a verdict for the plaintiff on the general issue, 
 Denman, C. J., said with regard to Randleson v. Murray : 
 " The work was in effect done by the defendant himself 
 at his own warehouse. If he chose instead of keeping a 
 porter to hire one only for the day, he did not thereby 
 cease to be liable for injury done by the porter while 
 under his control. Here it does not appear that the 
 defendant attended the drover or his servant, and the 
 mischief was done, not in the course of the butcher's 
 business, but of the drover's." And Williams, J., added : 
 " I agree with the decision of Randleson v. Murray, for 
 the warehouseman's servant, whether daily or weekly, 
 is equally under the control of the warehouseman ;" and 
 Coleridge, J., said : " The true test is to ascertain the 
 relation between the party charged and the party actu- 
 ally doing the injury. Unless the relation of master 
 
 1 12 A. & E. 73 7 , 40 E. C. L.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 125 
 
 and servant exist between them, the act of the one 
 creates no liability in the other." Therefore, reading 
 Randleson v. Murray as it is explained in Milligan v. 
 Wedge, it is not inconsistent with the later cases. Under 
 the doctrine of this section, two recent cases have been 
 decided : thus, where a railway company contracted 
 with an individual to take entire charge of its freight 
 business at its terminus, under the supervision of the 
 railway superintendent, the railway was held liable to 
 a person injured by the negligent handling of a train 
 by the contractor's servants, 1 and where a railway per- 
 mitted a contractor to exercise its franchise of running 
 cars drawn by steam over its line, 2 the railway was held 
 liable for injuries done by the negligence of the con- 
 tractor's servants. 
 
 The reservation to the railway of a limited control over the manner of 
 . doing the work will not render the raihvay liable for the contractor's 
 negligence. 
 
 125. The fact that the contract requires the contractor 
 to do the work in accordance with the plans, specifica- 
 tions, and instructions furnished by the railway will not 
 render the railway liable, 3 nor that the contract reserves 
 to the railway power to insist on the removal of careless 
 or incompetent workmen employed by the contractor; 4 
 nor that the contract reserves to the railway power to 
 direct changes in the time and manner of doing the 
 work ; 5 nor that the contract reserves to the railway the 
 right to direct as to the quantity of work to be done, or 
 as to the condition of the work when comjneted ; 6 nor 
 
 1 Speed v. A. & P. R. R., 71 Mo. 303, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 77. 
 
 1 M. & A. R. R. v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355. 
 
 8 Hunt v. P. R. R., 51 Penna. St. 475 ; Smith v. Simmons, 103 Id. 32. 
 
 4 Reedie v. L. & X. W. Ry., 4 Ex. 243. 
 
 5 Erie v. Caulkins, 85 Penna. St. 247. 
 
 • Hughes v. C. & S. Ry., 39 Ohio St. 461, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 100.
 
 126 WRONGS IN PURSUANCE OF CONTRACT. 
 
 that the contractor is paid by the day ; l nor that the 
 contractor's servant whose negligence caused the injury 
 is paid by the railway while directed and controlled in 
 his action by the contractor. 2 
 
 n. THE LIABILITY FOR A WRONGFUL ACT DONE IN 
 PURSUANCE OF THE CONTRACT. 
 
 The railway will be liable where the injury is done by a wrongful 
 act performed by the contractor in the execution of his contract. 
 
 126. The doctrine of the independent contractor will 
 not exempt a railway from liability where the act which 
 occasions the injury is one which the contractor was en- 
 gaged to do, and which he has done in pursuance of his 
 contract, and where the act in itself is a wrong. In such 
 cases the employer is, of course, liable, for the contractor 
 in fulfilling his contract is the employer's agent. Thus 
 in Hole v. S. & S. Ey., 3 the defendant, being authorized 
 by Act of Parliament to construct a railway draw-bridge 
 across a navigable river, had employed a contractor, by 
 whose negligence in the construction of the bridge the 
 bridge, when completed, could not be opened, and the 
 plaintiff's vessel was prevented from navigating the 
 river. After verdict for the plaintiff a rule for a new 
 trial was discharged, Pollock, C. B., saying: "This is a 
 case in which the maxim ' qui facit per alium facit per se } 
 applies. Where a person is authorized by an Act of 
 Parliament or bound by contract to do a particular work 
 he cannot avoid responsibility by contracting with an- 
 other person to do that work. Where the act complained 
 of is purely collateral and arises incidentally in the course 
 of the performance of the work, the employer is not lia- 
 
 1 Harrison v. Collins, 86 Penna. St. 153; Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377. 
 * Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co., I, R. 2 C. P. D. 205. 
 8 6 II. & N. 488.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 127 
 
 ble, because lie never authorized the act — the remedy 
 is against the person who did it. * * * But when the 
 contractor is employed to do a particular act, the doing 
 of which causes mischief, another doctrine applies. 
 Here the legislature employed the company to build 
 the bridge; in building that bridge the contractor 
 created an obstruction to the navigation, and for that 
 the company are liable." 1 
 
 III. THE LIABILITY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S NON-PER- 
 FORMANCE OF A DUTY INCUMBENT ON THE RAILWAY. 
 
 The railway is liable where the injury is done by the contractor's non- 
 performance of a duty whose performance was incumbent upon the 
 railway. 
 
 127. So also the employer is liable where the contractor, 
 having been entrusted with the performance of a duty 
 incumbent upon the employer, neglects its fulfillment, 
 whereby an injury is occasioned. Thus in Pickard v. 
 Smith, 2 Williams, J., after stating the general rule of 
 non-liability for the negligence of an independent con- 
 tractor, added : " That rule, however, is inapplicable to 
 cases in which the act which occasions the injury is one 
 which the contractor was employed to do ; nor by a 
 parity of reasoning to cases in which the contractor, 
 having been entrusted with the performance of a duty 
 incumbent upon the employer, neglects its fulfillment, 
 whereby an injury is occasioned. * * * * * If the per- 
 formance of the duty be omitted, the fact of his having 
 entrusted it to a person who also neglected it, furnishes 
 
 1 See also Ellis v. Sheffield G. C. Co., 2 E. & B. 767, 75 E. C. L. ; Blake v. 
 Thirst, 2 H. & C. 20; Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B. N. S. 470, 100 E. C. L. ; 
 Tarry r. Ashton, 1 Q. B. D. 314; Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black 418; Robbins v. 
 Chicago, 4 Wall. 657 ; Clark v. Fry, 8 Ohio St. 359 ; Lowell v. B. & L. R. R., 
 23 Pick. 24; St. P. Water Co. v. Ware, 16 Wall. 566 ; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. 
 v. Wells, 66 111. 321 ; C. &. St. L. R. R. v. Woosley, 85 Id. 370. 
 
 » 10 C. B. N. S. 483, 100 E. C. L.
 
 128 NON-FERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYER'S DUTY. 
 
 no excuse either in good sense or law." And in Bower 
 v. Peate, 1 the plaintiff and the defendant being owners 
 of adjoining houses, and the plaintiff being entitled to 
 lateral support for his house from the defendant's soil, 
 the defendant employed a contractor to pull down his 
 house, excavate the cellar, and rebuild, the contractor 
 stipulating to underpin the plaintiffs house and make 
 good any damages. The plaintiff's house having been 
 injured by the negligence of the contractor's servant, it 
 was held that the defendant was liable, Cockburn, C. J., 
 saying : "A man who orders a work to be executed, from 
 which, in the natural course of things, injurious conse- 
 quences to his neighbour must be expected to arise 
 unless means are adopted by which such consequences 
 may be prevented, is bound to see to the doing of that 
 which is necessary to prevent the mischief, and cannot 
 relieve himself of his responsibility by employing some 
 one else, whether it be the contractor employed to do 
 the work from which the danger arises, or some inde- 
 pendent person, to do what is necessary to prevent the 
 act he has ordered to be done from becoming wrongful. 
 There is an obvious difference between committing work 
 to a contractor, from which, if properly done, no injuri- 
 ous consequences can arise, and handing over to him 
 work to be done from which mischievous consequences 
 will arise unless preventive measures are adopted. 
 While it may be just to hold the party authorizing the 
 work in the former case exempt from liability for injury, 
 resulting from negligence which he had no reason to 
 anticipate, there is, on the other hand, good ground for 
 holding him liable for injury caused by an act certain 
 to be attended with injurious consequences if such con- 
 sequences are not, in fact, prevented, no matter through 
 whose default the omission to take the necessary meas- 
 
 1 1 Q. B. D. 326.
 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 129 
 
 ures for such prevention may arise." Bower v. Peate 
 is recognized and approved by the House of Lords in 
 Dalton v. Angus. 1 
 
 rv. the railway's obligation as to the anticipation 
 
 OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ITS CONTRACTOR. 
 
 The railway is not negligent if it does not anticipate and guard against 
 the negligence of a carefully selected contractor, to whom it has en- 
 trusted the prosecution of a lawful work. 
 
 128. A railway is not bound to anticipate that a care- 
 fully selected and experienced contractor will do his 
 work negligently, and, therefore, the railway is not liable 
 if it fails to take precautions against possible negligence 
 on the part of the contractor or of his servants ; thus in 
 Daniels v. M. Ry., 2 Lord Westbury, with that clear ap- 
 preciation of the practical effects of rules of law which 
 is always to be found in the judgments of the House of 
 Lords, said: "The ordinary business of life could not go 
 on if we had not a right to rely upon things being 
 properly done when we have committed and entrusted 
 them to persons whose duty it is to do things of that 
 nature, and who are selected for the purpose with j3ru- 
 dence and care, as being experienced in the matter, and 
 are held responsible for the execution of the work. Un- 
 doubtedly it would create confusion in all things if you 
 were to say that the man who employs others for the 
 execution of such a work, or the man who is a party to 
 the employment, has no right whatever to believe that 
 the thing will be done carefully and well, having selected, 
 with all prudence, proper persons to perforin the work, 
 but that he is still under an obligation to do that which, 
 
 1 6 App. Cas. 740. See also Roman v. Stanley, 66 Penna. St. 464 ; The 
 M. D. Trustees v. Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 116. 
 
 2 L. R. 5 H. L. 61. 
 
 9
 
 130 ANTICIPATION OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 to him, in many cases, would be impossible, namely, to 
 interpose from time to time in order to ascertain that 
 that was done correctly and properly, the business of 
 doing which he had rightfully and properly committed 
 to other persons." On the other hand, in V. C. It. R. 
 v. Sanger, 1 the railway was held liable to a passenger 
 who was injured by the derailment of a train, resulting 
 from the fall of a stone from an embankment then in 
 process of construction by a contractor employed by the 
 railway, it being held that the railway was negligent in 
 failing to guard against such an accident. The right 
 doctrine, however, would seem to be that which is so 
 clearly stated by Lord Westbury. 
 
 1 15 Gratt. 230.
 
 LIABILITY FOE OTHER COEPOEATIONS, ETC. 131 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 
 THE RAILWAY'S LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS 
 OF OTHER RAILWAYS AND OF PERSONS OTHER THAN SER- 
 VANTS AND CONTRACTORS. 
 
 I. The general rule determining the liability. 
 II. The liability of railways for lessees. 
 
 III. The liability of railways for mortgage trustees in possession. 
 
 IV. The liability of railways for receivers. 
 
 V. The liability of railways for means of transportation under the im- 
 mediate control of third parties. 
 VI. The liability of railways for connecting lines. 
 VII. The liability of a railway for the negligence of other railways which 
 under statutory authority use its line. 
 VIII. The liability of a railway for other railways or individuals which by 
 contract use its line. 
 
 I. THE GENERAL RULE DETERMINING THE LIABILITY. 
 
 The railway is liable for the negligent acts of other corporations and 
 of individuals, which hold to it a relation of agency. 
 
 129. Upon the principles stated in the preceding 
 chapters, the railway is not liable for the negligent acts 
 of those who are not its agents, and this doctrine is 
 further illustrated in the cases of injuries done in the 
 operation of a railway line by a receiver appointed by 
 a court of competent jurisdiction, or by mortgage trus- 
 tees in exclusive possession of the line, and also in the 
 cases of injuries done by negligence upon the part of 
 another railway, which exercises statutory running 
 powers over the line, or which operates the line by 
 virtue of a lease made under express statutory authority; 
 but the converse of the proposition is illustrated in the 
 cases of injuries done in the operation of a line by a
 
 132 LIABILITY FOE LESSEES. 
 
 lessee to whom the line lias been lensed without express 
 statutory authority, and also in the cases of injuries 
 done to a passenger by the failure of a means of trans- 
 portation which is under the control of a third party. 
 
 II. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOE, THE NEGLIGENCE 
 OF LESSEES. 
 
 The railway is liable for the negligent acts of a lessee of its line, when 
 the lease has not been expressly authorized by statute, and not liable 
 when the lease has been so authorized. 
 
 130. A railway cannot without express statutory 
 authority divest itself of its franchise, or delegate to 
 others the performance of that duty which the legisla- 
 ture has imposed upon it ; thus, in Gardner v. L. C. & 
 D. Ry., 1 Cairns, L. J., said, " when Parliament, acting 
 for the public interest, authorizes the construction and 
 maintenance of a railway, both as a highway for the 
 public, and as a road on which the company may them- 
 selves become carriers of passengers and goods, it con- 
 fers powers and imposes duties and responsibilities of 
 the largest and most important kind, yet it confers 
 and imposes them upon the company which Parliament 
 has before it, and upon no other body of persons. 
 These powers must be executed, and these duties be dis- 
 charged by the company. They cannot be delegated or 
 transferred." * * * So, in W. A. & G. R. R v. Brown, 2 
 Davis, J., said, " it is the accepted doctrine in this 
 country, that a railroad coloration cannot escape the 
 performance of any duty or obligation imposed by its 
 charter or the general laws of the State by a vol- 
 untary surrender of its road into the hands of les- 
 sees." These views are abundantly supported by other 
 
 1 L. R. 2 Ch. 201. J 17 Wall. 445.
 
 LIABILITY FOE LESSEES. 133 
 
 authorities. 1 Therefore, where the lease has not been 
 authorized by express statutory authority, both the les- 
 sor and lessee railways are liable for injuries done by 
 the lessee's negligent operation of the line. 2 Upon the 
 same principle, a railway is also liable for negligence 
 on the part of persons whom it voluntarily permits to 
 exercise its franchise of running cars over its line. 3 
 
 131. On the other hand, where a railway, under due 
 authority of law, has leased its line to another railway, 
 the lessor railway is not liable for torts committed by the 
 lessee railway in the operation of the line. 4 Yet, in 
 Singleton v. S. W. R. R., 5 where a lease had been 
 authorized by statute, the lessor railway was held liable 
 to a passenger who was injured by the negligent opera- 
 tion of a train by the servants of the lessee railway, 
 upon the ground that the statute authorizing the lease 
 did not, in terms, exempt the lessor railway from lia- 
 bility ; but this case is certainly in conflict with the 
 current of authority. 
 
 132. A railway operated on joint account by re- 
 ceivers of part of its line, and also by lessees of the 
 remaining part thereof, is liable where the railway has 
 permitted tickets to be issued in its name for transpor- 
 tation over the whole line ; 6 for, as Davis, J., said, " the 
 
 1 Y. & M. L. R. R. v. Winans, 17 Howard 30 ; Beman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. N. 
 S. 550; Winch v. B. L. & C. J. Ry., 5 De G. & S. 562, 16 Jur. 1035 ; G. N. 
 Ry. v. E. C. Ry , 9 Hare 306 ; Black v. D. & R. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 130 ; 
 M. R. R. v. B. & C. R. R., 115 Mass. 347 ; Thomas v. W. J. Ry., 101 U. S. 71. 
 
 2 I. C. R. R. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90 ; C. & St. L. R. R. v. McCarthy, 20 111. 
 385; C. & R. I. R. R. v. Whipple, 22 Id. 105; Nelson v. V. C. R. R., 26 Vt. 
 717 ; McElroy v. N. R. R, 4 Cush. 400 ; Y. & M. L. R. R. v. Winans, 17 How, 
 30; Freemann v. M. <fe St. L. Ry., 28 Minn. 443, 7 Am, & Eng. R. R, Cas, 410 ; 
 Speed v, A. & P. R. R., 71 Mo. 303 ; 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 77. 
 
 3 M. & A. R. R. v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355. 
 
 4 Mahony v. A. & St. L. R. R., 63 Me. 68 ; Ditchett v. St. P.. D. & P. M. R. 
 R., 67 N. Y. 425. 
 
 5 70 Ga. 464, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 226. 
 
 6 W. A. & G. R. R. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445.
 
 134 LIABILITY FOE, MORTGAGE TRUSTEES. 
 
 company having permitted the lessees and receiver to 
 conduct the business of the road in this particular, as 
 if there were no change of possession, is not in a posi- 
 tion to raise any question as to its liability for their 
 acts." 
 
 III. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR THE NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF MORTGAGE TRUSTEES IN POSSESSION. 
 
 The railway is not liable for injuries done in the operation of its line 
 by trustees in possession wider a mortgage duly executed under 
 express statutory authority. 
 
 133. A railway cannot, without express statutory 
 authority, mortgage its franchise or line. 1 But where 
 a mortgage has been duly executed under such authority, 
 and the mortgage trustees have entered into possession 
 of the line in accordance with the terms of such a mort- 
 gage, the railway is not liable for injuries done by the 
 mortgage trustees or their servants. 2 Mortgage trus- 
 tees in possession are liable for injuries caused by their 
 nedect or that of their servants, and this liability is 
 enforceable in any jurisdiction in which they may be 
 properly served with process. 3 A corporation or an indi- 
 vidual, who, by voluntary conveyance, becomes the legal 
 successor of a railway and the assignee of its assets, takes 
 those assets charged with the liabilities encumbering 
 them, including claims for damages for personal injuries ; 4 
 but purchasers of a railway under a judicial foreclosure 
 of a mortgage are not liable for injuries done prior to 
 
 1 Gardner v. L. D. & C. Ry., L. R. 2 Ch. 201 ; Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 
 Allen 448 ; Carpenter v. Mining Co., 65 N. Y. 43 ; S. C. Co. v. Bonham, 9 W. 
 & S. 27 ; Atkinson v. M. & C. R. R., 15 Ohio St. 21. 
 
 J State v. E. & N. A. Ry.. 67 Me. 479. 
 
 3 Bpragae v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421 ; Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9 ; Lamphear 
 v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 237 ; Rogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598 ; Smith v. 
 E. R. R., 124 Mass. 154. 
 
 * M. & W. P. R. R. v. Boring, 51 Ga. 582.
 
 LIABILITY FOE RECEIVERS. 135 
 
 their entry into possession of the railway, 1 unless such a 
 liability be imposed by statute. 2 
 
 IV. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR THE NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF RECEIVERS. 
 
 The railway is not liable for injuries done in the operation of its line 
 by a receiver who has been appointed by a court of competent juris- 
 diction, and is in exclusive possession of the line. 
 
 134. A railway whose line is in the custody of, and 
 operated by a receiver, is not liable in damages for 
 injuries resulting from the negligence of the receiver 
 or his servants. 3 Receivers in possession and operating 
 railways are personally liable for their individual 
 breaches of contract and torts, but not for torts com- 
 mitted by the servants whom they employ in the opera- 
 tion of the railway. Railway receivers are liable in 
 their official capacity, and to the extent of the property 
 in their custody, as such receivers, for their breaches of 
 contract, and for all torts done by themselves or their 
 servants in the course of the operation of the railway. 4 
 So, where a receiver has, in obedience to a decree of 
 court, relinquished possession of the railway line and 
 property and been discharged, he cannot be compelled 
 to make compensation to one w T ho was injured in the 
 course of the operation of the line by the negligence of 
 
 1 W. & T. P. R. v. Griffin, 57 Penna. St. 417 ; Metz v. B. C. & P. R. R., 58 
 N. Y. 61. 
 
 2 St. L., A. & T. H. R. R. v. Miller, 43 III. 199 ; Hatcher v. T. W. & W. R. 
 R.. 62 Id. 477. 
 
 8 Ballou v. Farnum, 9 Allen 47; O. & M. R. R. v. Davis, 23 Ind. 553; Bell 
 v. I., C. & R. Ry., 53 Id. 57 ; Metz v. B. C. & P. R. R,, 58 N. Y. 61 ; Rogers v. 
 M. & 0. R. R., Lea (Tenn.) , 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 442 ; Davis v. 
 Duncan (U. S. C. C. So. Dist. Miss.), 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 295 ; M. & L. 
 R. R. R. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374; Turner 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 74 Mo. 603, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38. 
 
 * Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137 ; Sloan v. C. I. Ry., 62 Iowa 728, II 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 145.
 
 136 LIABILITY FOR PARLOR OAKS, ETC. 
 
 the receiver's servants. 1 It has, however, been held 
 that receivers are only liable to action within the juris- 
 diction authorizing them to act, and by leave of the 
 court appointing them. 2 A receiver is personally liable 
 when he voluntarily becomes lessee of a connecting line 
 on which plaintiff is injured. 3 
 
 V. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS FOR MEANS OF 
 TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL 
 OF THIRD PARTIES. 
 
 The raihvay is liable to its passengers for negligence in the construction, 
 maintenance in repair, or operation of means of transport, which are 
 under the immediate control of third parties. 
 
 135. This rule is applied in cases where the injury is 
 done in an omnibus engaged by the railway to bring 
 the passenger to its station ; 4 or, in a ferry boat operated 
 by an independent corporation, but used by the railway 
 to carry its passengers to their point of destination ; 5 or, 
 on wharves and landings, 6 and in parlor and sleeping 
 cars. 7 
 
 1 Davis v. Duncan (U. S. C. C. So. Dist. Miss.), 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 295. 
 
 2 Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281 ; Metz v. B. C. & P. By., 58 Id. 61 ; Klein 
 v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474 ; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 135. See, contra : 
 Blunienthal v. Smith, 38 Vt. 402 ; Newell v. Smith, 49 Id. 260 ; Paige v. Smith, 
 99 Mass. 395 ; Nichols v. Smith, 115 Id. 332. 
 
 3 Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545. 
 * Buffett v. T. & B. R. R., 40 N. Y. 168. 
 
 5 N. J. R. R. v. Palmer, 4 Vroom (N. J.) 90. 
 
 6 John v. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. 437 ; Knight v. P. S. & P. R. R., 56 Me. 234 , 
 Gruber v. W. & J. R. R., 92 N. C. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 438. 
 
 7 Penna. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451 ; C, C. & I. Ry. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 
 461, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 371 ; Kinsley v. R. R., 125 Mass. 54 ; Thorpe v. 
 N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 76 N. Y. 402.
 
 LIABILITY FOE CONNECTING LINES. 137 
 
 VI. THE LIABILITY OF KAILWAYS FOB, THE NEGLIGENCE 
 OF CONNECTING LINES. 
 
 The railway is liable to one whom it has contracted to carry to a point 
 beyond the terminus of its own line and over the line of a connecting 
 railway for injuries done on that connecting line. 
 
 136. The question as to the liability of railways for 
 the negligence of connecting railways seems to have been 
 first raised in Muschamp v. L. & P. Ry., 1 where the 
 plaintiff sued for the value of a parcel which had been 
 delivered at one of the defendant's stations for carriage 
 to a point beyond the terminus of its line, and which 
 was shown to have been lost after its delivery to a con- 
 necting line. Judgment was entered upon a verdict for 
 the plaintiff. This case was followed in Watson v. 
 Ambergate Ry., 2 and Scothorn v. S. S. Ry., 3 and was 
 cited with approval in the judgments of the House of 
 Lords in B. & E. Ry. v. Collins. 4 The converse of the 
 proposition was ruled in the last cited case, where the 
 plaintiff, having delivered goods at the Bath Station of 
 the G. W. Ry. to be forwarded to Torquay over the lines 
 of the G. W. & B. & E. Ry. Companies, and the goods 
 having been destroyed by fire while in transit over the 
 line of the latter company, it was held that for want of 
 privity of contract that company was not liable for their 
 loss. In Mytton v. Midland Ry., 5 a similar ruling was 
 made with regard to a passenger's luggage, it being held 
 that there was no privity of contract as between the 
 passenger and the connecting railway, his contract being 
 entire with the railway from whom he had bought his 
 ticket for the transportation of himself and his luggage 
 to the point of destination, although that point of desti- 
 
 1 8 M. & W. 421. » 15 Jur. 448. 
 
 * 8 Ex. 341. »7 H. L. 194. 
 
 6 4 H. & N. 615.
 
 138 LIABILITY FOE CONNECTING LINES. 
 
 nation was upon the line of the connecting railway 
 company. The question with regard to the liability of the 
 contracting railway company for injuries to the person 
 of the passenger was first raised in G. W. Ry. v. Blake, 1 
 where the plaintiff, having bought a ticket from the de- 
 fendant for his transportation to Milford, the defendant's 
 line terminating at Grange Court and their train thence 
 proceeding over the line of the S. W. Ry., and the de- 
 fendant's train while on the S. W. line having come into 
 collision with an engine of the S. W. Company, the col- 
 lision being solely due to the negligence of the servants 
 of the S. W. Ry., the plaintiff was injured ; and it was 
 held in the Exchequer Chamber that the G. W. Ry. 
 was liable to the plaintiff for the breach of their implied 
 contract to use reasonable care to maintain the whole 
 line to Milford in a condition fit for traffic. This case 
 was followed in Birkett v. W. H. J. Ry., 2 Buxton v. N. 
 E. Ry., 3 and Thomas v. Rhymney Ry. ; 4 although in 
 the first of these cases the judgment of the court might 
 have been put upon the narrower ground that there was 
 evidence of negligence upon the part of the defendant's 
 servants, because the accident, although happening upon 
 a connecting line, had been caused by the negligent dis- 
 placement of a switch by a servant of the defendant 
 company. 5 In Sprague v. Smith, 6 a contrary conclusion 
 was reached, based upon the theory that the' plaintiff, 
 being necessarily aware that he must be exposed to the 
 risk of injury from negligence on the part of the persons 
 operating the line over which the defendant had con- 
 tracted to carry him, must be held to have undertaken 
 
 1 7 H. & N. 987. * 4 H. & N. 730. 
 
 3 L. E. 3 Q. B. 549. * L. E. 6 Q. B. 266. 
 
 5 See also Murch v. C. E. E, 9 Foster 9 ; Stetler v. C. & N. W. Ey., 49 Wise. 
 609 ; W. St. L. & P. Ey. v. Peyton, 106 111. 534 ; Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 
 306 ; Bissell v. M. S. & N. I. E. E, 22 N. Y. 258. 
 
 6 29 Vt. 421.
 
 LIABILITY FOE CONNECTING LINES. 139 
 
 to bear that risk, as the defendant could exercise no 
 control over the management of the other line. This 
 case does not seem to be supported by other authority, 
 and its reasoning cannot be regarded as satisfactory. 1 
 Some .of the cases hold that, while a railway selling to a 
 passenger a ticket for transportation by other railways, 
 or other carriers, to a point beyond the terminus of its 
 line may bind itself by contract to be liable for injuries 
 to that passenger received upon the lines of those other 
 railways, or carriers, yet the mere sale of the ticket does 
 not have that effect. 2 Nevertheless, the weight of au- 
 thority is in favour of the proposition that a railway, by 
 contracting to deliver a passenger at a point beyond the 
 terminus of its own line, does impliedly engage to be 
 answerable to him for the negligence of the agents whom 
 it employs for the purpose of performing its contract. 
 
 137. A railway is also liable to its passengers while 
 on its line for injuries caused by negligence upon the 
 part of another railway whose line connects with the 
 line of the carrying railroad ; as, for instance, where a 
 passenger was injured by the negligence of a servant of 
 the other railway in coupling its carriage to the defend- 
 ant's carriage on a flying switch. 3 The same principle 
 applies where a contract of carriage having been made 
 by the railway, the motive power is furnished by another 
 party, and the carrier is held liable for negligence 
 upon the part of the person furnishing the motive power. 4 
 
 1 See also Hood v. N. Y. & N. H. K. R., 22 Conn. 1, 23 Id. 609. 
 
 1 Harlan v. E. E. E., 114 Mass. 44; N. & C. E. E. v. Sprayberry, 8 Baxt. 
 (Tenn.) 341. 
 
 s White v. F. E. E., 136 Mass. 321, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 140 ; Warren 
 v. F. E. E., 8 Allen 227 ; Eaton v. B. & L. E. E., 11 Id. 500. 
 
 4 Peters v. Eylands, 20 Penna. St. 497 ; Keep v. I. E. E., 9 Fed. Eep. 625 ; 
 McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 277 ; Seymour v. C. B. & Q. E. E., 3 Biss. 43.
 
 140 LIABILITY FOR OTHER RAILWAYS. 
 
 VII. THE LIABILITY OF A RAILWAY FOR THE NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF OTHER RAILWAYS USING ITS LINE UNDER 
 STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 
 
 Tlie railway is not liable for the negligence of another railway, which, 
 ■under .statutory authority and without the voluntary consent of the 
 railway, uses its line. 
 
 138. It is, however, to be borne in mind, that the 
 carrier railway, where there has been no negligence 
 upon its part, or upon the part of its agents or servants, 
 is not to be held liable for an injury caused to its passen- 
 ger solely by negligence on the part of another railway, 
 which, under statutory authority, uses its line. Thus, in 
 Taylor v. G. N. Ry., 1 the defendant having been pre- 
 vented from carrying the plaintiffs goods within a rea- 
 sonable time by an unavoidable obstruction on its line, 
 caused solely by the negligence of the Midland Ry., 
 which had, under an Act of Parliament, running powers 
 over the defendant's line, it was held that the defendant 
 was not liable to the j)laintiff for damages caused by the 
 delay. And upon the same principle, in Wright v. 
 Midland Ry., 2 where the defendant had contracted to 
 carry the passenger from Leeds to Sheffield over their 
 own line, and a train of the L. & N. W. Ry., which 
 had statutory running powers over the Midland line, 
 having, without any fault upon the part of the defend- 
 ant, run into the defendant's train and injured the 
 plaintiff, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled 
 to recover, the ground of the decision being that the de- 
 fendant was not an insurer of the safety of its passen- 
 gers, but a contractor " that all persons connected with 
 the carrying, and with the means and the appliances of 
 
 1 L. R. 1 C. P. 385. 2 L. R. 8 Ex. 137.
 
 LIABILITY FOR OTHER RAILWAYS. 141 
 
 the carrying, with the carriages, the road, the signalling 
 and otherwise shall use care and diligence, so that no 
 accident may happen, but they contract no further." 
 Where, however, the carrier, railway is in any respect 
 negligent, it is liable, although the injury was, in part, 
 caused by negligence on the part of a railway which ex- 
 ercises statutory running powers over its line. Thus, 
 in McElroy v. N. & L. R. R., 1 the plaintiff, a passen- 
 ger on the defendant's line, was injured by the negli- 
 gent displacement of a switch by a switch-tender, the 
 switch having been put in position, and the switch- 
 tender being appointed, paid, and controlled by the C. 
 R. R., which, without defendant's consent, had been 
 empowered by statute to enter upon and connect with 
 defendant's line ; and the defendant was held liable 
 upon the ground that the switch was a part of defend- 
 ant's line, and that " it was within the scope of their 
 duty to see that the switch was rightly constructed, at- 
 tended, and managed, before they were justified in car- 
 rying passengers over it." 
 
 VIII. THE LIABILITY OF A RAILWAY FOR THE NEGLI- 
 GENCE OF OTHER RAILWAYS USING ITS LINE BY CON- 
 TRACT. 
 
 A railway, which, by contract, voluntarily permits another railway, or 
 an individual, to run trains over its line, is liable to its passengers 
 for the negligence of that railway or individual. 
 
 139. On the other hand, where a railway has, by 
 contract, authorized another railway or an individual to 
 run trains over its line, it is liable to its passengers for 
 injuries caused by negligence on the part of that other 
 
 1 4 Cush. 400.
 
 142 LIABILITY FOR OTHER RAILWAYS. 
 
 railway or person. 1 Upon the same principle, the rail- 
 way, in Speed v. A. & P. B,. R., 2 was held liable for the 
 negligence of a contractor to whom it had delegated its 
 charter duty of transporting freight. 
 
 1 I. C. R. R. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90; C. & St. P. R. R. v. McCarthy, 20 111. 
 385 ; O. & M. R. R. v. Dunbar, Id. 623; C. & R. I. R. R. v. Whipple, 22 Id. 
 105 ; Nelson v. V. & C. R. R., 26 Vt. 717 ; M. & A. R. R. v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355. 
 
 s 71 Mo. 303, 2 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 77.
 
 THE PERSONS TO WHOM LIABLE. 143 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 THE PERSONS FOR INJURIES TO WHOM THE RAILWAY IS 
 
 LIABLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF THE PERSONS WHO MAY BE INJURED 
 IN THE COURSE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS. 
 
 140. The persons who possibly may be injured in the 
 course of railway operations can be classified under the 
 following categories : 
 
 I. Persons who are rightfully upon highways adjoin- 
 ing or crossiug the railway's Hue or premises. 
 
 II. Persons who come upon the railway's line or 
 premises as mere licensees. 
 
 III. Trespassers upon the railway's line, premises, or 
 cars. 
 
 IV. Persons who, in the course of the performance 
 of a contract based upon a valuable consideration, come 
 upon the line, premises, or cars of the railway, including 
 herein passengers of the railway ; attendants of pas- 
 sengers; passengers of another railway, received for 
 transportation in the railway's cars; passengers of 
 another railway, whose cars are run over the line of 
 the railway ; passengers of another railway with whom 
 a station is jointly occupied ; servants of another rail- 
 way while upon the line or premises of the railway in 
 the performance of their duty to that other railway; 
 consignors, consignees, and their agents, personally as-
 
 144 CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 sisting iii the reception, carriage, or delivery of their 
 freight ; persons entering under special contract upon 
 the railway's line or premises; post-office employes 
 carried under a contract between the railway and the 
 Post-Office Department, or under a statutory duty im- 
 posed upon the railway ; persons carried under contract 
 between the railway and a third party; servants of 
 express companies whose cars are run, or whose goods 
 are carried over the line ; and persons who are carried 
 on the line to sell refreshments, newspapers, etc., to 
 passengers. 
 
 V. The servants of the railway, including herein 
 such officers and employes of every grade as are engaged 
 in the operation of the line. 
 
 The relation between the railway and the persons in- 
 cluded in the first three categories is non-contractual, 
 and the relation between the railway and the persons 
 included in the last two categories is contractual.
 
 NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. 145 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GENERAL, PRINCIPLE DETERMINING THE LIABILITY OP 
 THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE FIRST 
 THREE CATEGORIES. 
 
 If the railway be operated without express statutory authority, it it 
 absolutely liable for all injuries done in the course of its operation ; 
 but if it be operated under express statutory authority, it is liable 
 only for negligence. 
 
 141. The operation of a railway, involving the rapid 
 movement of engines and cars by the use of steam as a 
 motive power, is a hazardous business, and, if not skill- 
 fully and carefully conducted, threatens danger to life 
 and limb and injury to property. Its conduct, in the 
 absence of express statutory authority for the use of its 
 dangerous appliances, falls within that rule of law which 
 has found its best expression in Rylands v. Fletcher, 1 
 and which holds him who keeps or uses anything essent- 
 ially dangerous, civiliter responsible for all the damage 
 which the thing causes, even though there be on his 
 part neither wilful wrongdoing nor negligence. 2 But, 
 as Cockburn, C. J., said in Vaughan v. T. V. Ry, 3 "when 
 the legislature has sanctioned and authorized the use of 
 a particular thing, and it is used for the purpose for 
 which it was authorized, and every precaution has been 
 observed to prevent injury, the sanction of the legisla- 
 ture carries with it this consequence, that, if damage 
 
 ' L. R. 3 H. L. 330. 
 
 1 Jones v. F. Ry., L. R. 3 Q. B. 733 ; Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H. & C. 774, 
 L. R. 1 Ex. 265, L. R. 3 H. L. 330 ; Stiles v. N. Co., 33 L- J. N. S. 311 ; Oakea 
 v. Spanlding, 40 Vt. 347 ; C. & E. Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 U. S. 645. 
 
 3 5 H. & N. 685. 
 10
 
 146 NON- CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. 
 
 results from the use of sueli thing independently of 
 negligence, the party using it is not responsible." 1 
 
 142. Therefore, a railway, whose construction and 
 mode of operation, and whose use of steam as a motive 
 power has been duly sanctioned by legislative authority, 
 is, in case of injury caused to any individual in the 
 course of its operations, liable only for negligence upon 
 its part, unless it has by contract lawfully bound itself 
 to a higher or a lower degree of liability. The char- 
 acter of the duty which the railway owes to the several 
 classes of persons included in the first three categories 
 is dependent upon the more or less rightful presence of 
 the person in the place where he receives his injury ; 
 thus, the railway owes to travellers on the highway a 
 high degree of duty, for their presence on the highway 
 is rightful, while it owes to those who come on its 
 premises, as mere licensees, a less degree of duty, for 
 licensees are bound to take the premises as they find 
 them, and it owes to trespassers on its line or premises 
 no duty beyond that of abstaining from intentional in- 
 jury to them, for it is not bound to anticipate the pres- 
 ence of, and to guard against unintentional injury to, 
 trespassers. 
 
 1 Blyth v. The B. Water Works, 11 Ex. 781 ; Vaughan v. T. V. Ry., 5 H. & 
 N. 685 ; Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30, 24 E. C. L. ; M. N. Co. v. Coons, 6 W. & 
 S. 101; Henry v. P. & A. Bridge Co., 8 Id. 85; O'Connor v, Pittsburgh, 18 
 Penna. St. 187 ; N. Y. & E. R. R. v. Young, 33 Id. 175 ; C. & P. R. R. v. Speer, 
 56 Id. 325 ; W. B. Canal Co. v. Mulliner, 68 Id. 357 ; Struthers v. D., W. & P. 
 Ry., 87 Id. 282 ; Dunn v. B. Canal Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 244, 8 Id. 42 ; Brand v. H. 
 Ry., L. R. 1 Q. B. 130, 2 Id. 223, L. R. 4 II. L. 171 ; Broughton v. M., G. W. 
 Ry., 1 Ir. C. L. 169 ; Dixon v. M. Board of Works, 7 Q. B. D. 418 ; P., W. & 
 B. R. R. v. Stinger, 78 Penna. St. 219 ; F. & B. Turnpike Co. v. P. & T. R R., 
 64 Id. 345 ; Wilds v. H. R. R. R., 29 N. Y. 315.
 
 LIABILITY TO PERSONS OX HIGHWAYS. 147 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED 
 IN THE FIRST CATEGORY, THAT IS, PERSONS WHO ARE 
 RIGHTFULLY UPON HIGHWAYS ADJOINING OR CROSSING THE 
 RAILWAY'S LINE OR PREMISES. 
 
 I. The liability of the railway to travellers on the highway for traps 
 within its own premises which endanger the safety of the trav- 
 ellers on the highway. 
 II. The liability of the railway to travellers on the highway for its 
 negligent construction of, or failure to repair, its buildings, etc. 
 
 III. The liability of the railway for injuries caused to persons on the 
 
 highway by the negligent operation of its line. 
 
 IV. The liability of the railway for its negligent construction of, or 
 
 failure to repair, grade crossings. 
 V. The duty of the railway in the operation of its line at grade cross- 
 ings. 
 VI. Contributory negligence at grade crossings. 
 
 143. The first category includes those who are right- 
 fully upon highways adjoining or crossing the railway's 
 line or premises. 
 
 I. THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO TRAVELLERS 
 ON THE HIGHWAY FOR TRAPS WITHIN ITS OWN PREM- 
 ISES WHICH ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE TRAV- 
 ELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 
 
 The railway is liable for anything in the nature of a trap, which, 
 although within its own premises, is yet so near to the highway as to 
 endanger the safety of travellers on the highway. 
 
 144. A railway, like other owners and tenants of 
 real estate, is also to be held liable for anything in the
 
 148 LIABILITY FOR LEAPS, ETC. 
 
 nature of a trap, though within its own premises, but 
 yet so near to the highway as to be dangerous to trav- 
 ellers on the highway. The obvious illustrations of this 
 rule are to be found in the cases of unprotected pits and 
 excavations dug within the railway's premises, but yet 
 so adjacent to the highway that passers on the highway 
 are likely, without fault on their part, to fall into them. 1 
 
 II. THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO TRAVELLERS 
 ON THE HIGHWAY FOR ITS NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION 
 OF, OR FAILURE TO REPAIR, ITS BUILDINGS, ETC. 
 
 The railway is liable for a negligent construction or maintenance of its 
 buildings, etc., causing injury to persons lawfully on the highivay. 
 
 145. Where the railway's line or premises abut upon 
 a public highway, the railway, like other owners or 
 occupants of real estate, is liable to persons lawfully 
 upon the highway for any injury caused by its negli- 
 gence in the original construction of, or in its failure to 
 maintain in repair, its line and premises. 2 This rule 
 
 1 Hadley v. Taylor, L. R. 1 C. P. 53 ; Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 392, 67 E. C. 
 L. ; Jarvis v. Dean, 3 Bing. 447, 11 E. C. L. ; Coupland v. Hardinghani, 3 
 Camp. 398 ; Weller v. Dunk, 4 F. & F. 298 ; Proctor v. Harris, 4 C. & P. 337, 
 19 E. C. L. ; Bush v. Johnston, 23 Penna. St. 209 ; Beatty v. Gilmore, 16 Id. 
 463; Grier v. Sampson. 27 Id. 183; Myers v. Snyder, Brightly N. P. 489; 
 Howland v. Vincent, 10 Mete. 371. 
 
 2 Kearney v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411, 6 Id. 759 ; P. & O. Canal 
 Co. v. Graham, 63 Penna. St. 290 ; Oakland Ry. v. Fielding, 48 Id. 320 ; C. V. 
 R. R. v. Hughes, 11 Id. 140 ; Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. McDonough, 33 Id. 73 ; 
 Tarry v. Ashton, 1 Q. B. D. 314 ; Clark v. Chambers, 3 Id. 327, criticising 
 Mangan v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Ex. 239; Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722; 111- 
 idge v. Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 190, 24 E. C. L. : Goldthorpe v. Hardman, 13 M. 
 & W. 377 ; Drew v. New River Co., 6 C. & P. 754, 25 E. C. L.; Smith v. West 
 Derby Local Board, 3 C. P. D. 423 ; Horaan v. Stanley, 66 Penna. St. 464 ; 
 Norristown v. Moyer, 67 Id. 355 ; Rapho v. Moore, 68 Id. 404 ; Hayes v. Gal- 
 lagher, 72 Id. 136 ; Stewart v. Alcorn, 2 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 401; 
 Bobbins v. Jones, 15 C. B. N. S. 221, 109 E. C. L. ; Beatty v. C. I. Ry., 58 Iowa 
 242, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 210 ; Sweeny v. O. C. R. R., 10 Allen 368 ; 
 Stewart v. Penna. Co., Ind. , 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 679.
 
 HIGHWAY BRIDGES. 149 
 
 has been applied in cases where the railway line is car- 
 ried over a highway by a bridge. 1 Thus, in Kearney v. 
 L. B. & S. C. By., 2 the defendant, whose line crossed a 
 highway by a bridge, was held liable to the plaintiff, 
 who, while walking on the highway under the bridge, 
 was injured by the falling of a brick from an abut- 
 ment, the falling of the brick being considered, in the 
 absence of explanation by the railway as to the cause 
 of its fall, to be evidence of negligence. 
 
 146. This rule has also been applied in cases where 
 a highway is carried over the railway line by a bridge. 3 
 Thus, in Manley v. St. H. By. & Canal Co., 4 the de- 
 fendant having, under statutory power, constructed its 
 canal, and, having cut a public highway and placed 
 there a swivel bridge, which, when moved for the pas- 
 sage of boats, left the highway unfenced, and, at night, 
 also unlighted, and the plaintiff's decedent, while walk- 
 ing on the highway at night, having stepped into the 
 canal and been drowned, the bridge being left open for 
 the passage of a boat, it was held that the defendant 
 was liable. So, in P. & O. Canal Co. v. Graham, 5 the 
 canal company being required by its charter to build 
 and keep in repair bridges, by which highways were 
 carried over the canal, and the plaintiff, while passing 
 over one of these bridges, having been injured by the 
 fall of the bridge resulting from negligence on the part 
 of the company, it was held that the company was 
 liable. So, in Hurst v. Taylor, 6 a contractor for the 
 construction of a railway line, who, in the course of his 
 
 1 Kearney v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411, 6 Id. 759 ; Cooke v. B. & 
 L. R. E., 133 Mass. 185. 
 
 J L. R. 5Q. B. 411, 6 Id. 759. 
 
 3 Manley v. St. H. Ry. & Canal Co., 2 II. & N. 840 ; P. & O. Canal Co. v. 
 Graham, 63 Penna. St. 290 ; Dickie v. B. & A. R. R., 131 Mass. 516, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 203; Titcomb v. F. R. R., 12 Allen 254. 
 
 4 2 H. & N. 840. 6 03 Penna. St. 290. 6 14 Q. E. D. 918.
 
 130 FAILURE TO REPAIR HIGHWAYS. 
 
 work, had diverted a public footpath, and had left the 
 point of divergence from the old way unguarded, and 
 dangerous by reason of its leading on to the line, was 
 held liable in damages to one who, at night, following 
 the old way, was injured by falling over a bridge abut- 
 ment ; the ground of decision being that " a duty is cast 
 upon those, who, in the exercise of statutory powers, 
 divert a public footpath, to protect, by fencing or other- 
 wise, reasonably careful persons using the footpath 
 from injury through going astray at the point of diver- 
 sion." 
 
 147. This rule has also been applied in cases where 
 the railway line is constructed upon a highway which 
 it is the duty of the railway to keep in repair, and 
 which duty the railway has not performed. 1 Thus, in 
 Oakland Ry. v. Fielding, 2 the defendant, whose line 
 occupied a public highway, and who had negligently 
 permitted a hole in the highway to remain unrepaired, 
 was held liable to the plaintiff, who was injured by 
 falling into the hole. So, where the line is constructed 
 on a highway within the bounds of a municipality, 
 whose ordinances, made under a legislative grant of 
 authority, require the line to be kept clear of snow, 
 the railway is liable for injuries done by its failure to 
 remove the snow in a reasonable time. 3 So, where the 
 railway has permitted an engineer's stake to remain on 
 a highway, and the plaintiff has been injured by falling 
 over that stake while walking on the highway, the rail- 
 way is liable to him in damages therefor. 4 So, in Con- 
 
 1 Oakland Ry. v. Fielding, 48 Penna. St. 320 ; Rathburn v. B. & M. R. R., 
 16 Neb. 441, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 137 ; Stieet R. R. v. Nolthenius, 40 
 Ohio St. 376, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 191 ; G. C. Ry. v. Nolan, 53 Tex. 139, 
 :: Am. &Eng. R. R. Cas. 387. 
 
 2 48 Penna. St. 320. 
 
 3 Bowen v. D. C. S. Ry., 54 Mich. 496, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 131. 
 1 Gudger v. W. N. C. R. R., 87 N. C. 325.
 
 INJURIES TO PERSONS ON HIGHWAYS. 151 
 
 Ion v. E. R. K., 1 the railway was held liable to one 
 injured on a highway by the fall of a derrick used in 
 the construction of a culvert. 
 
 III. THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY FOR INJURIES 
 CAUSED TO PERSONS ON THE HIGHWAY BY THE 
 NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF ITS LINE. 
 
 The railway is liable to persons lawfully on the highway for injuries 
 caused by its negligent operation of its line. 
 
 148. The railway is also liable to persons who are 
 lawfully on the highway, if it so negligently transact its 
 business as to render movement on the highway danger- 
 ous to passers-by ; as where a passer on the highway is 
 injured by the negligent roping of a car into a coal 
 yard, 2 or by the obstruction of a highway by cars, per- 
 mitted to remain at rest, blocking up a crossing ; 3 or by 
 a hand car negligently left upon a highway bridge, 4 or by 
 the fright of horses caused by the unnecessary and 
 excessive whistling of an engine, 5 or by an unnecessary 
 and excessive escape of steam from an engine, 6 or 
 
 1 135 Mass. 195, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 99. 
 
 2 N. P. R. R. v. Robinson, 44 Penna. St. 175. 
 
 3 Kauch v. Lloyd, 31 Penna. St. 358; P. R. R. v. Kelly, Id. 372; P. R. R 
 v. Horst, 10 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 567; Corey v. N. P. Ry., 32 Minn 
 457, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 352 ; Jackson v. N. C. & St. L. R. R., 13 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 491, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 433; State v. M. & E. R. R., 25 N. J. 
 L. 437 ; Ogle v. P. W. & B. R. R., 3 Houston 267 ; Young v. D. G. H. & M. Ry. 
 
 Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 417. 
 
 * P. C. & St L. R. R. v. Spanier, 85 Ind. 165, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 453. 
 
 6 P. R. R. v. Barnett, 59 Penna. St. 259 ; P. &. R. R. R. v. Killips, 88 Id. 405 ; 
 P. W. & B. R. R. v. Stinger, 78 Jd. 219 ; G. R. R. v. Thomas, 68 Ga. 744 ; Gulp 
 v. A. & N. R. R., 17 Kans. 475 ; G. R. R. v. Newsome, 00 Ga. 492 ; C. B. & Q. 
 R. R. v. Dickson, 88 111. 431 ; C. B. & Q. R. R. v. Dunn. 52 111. 451. 
 
 8 M. S. J. & A. Ry. v. Fullerton, 14 C. B. N. S. 54, 108 E. C L. ; L. & N. R. 
 R. v. Schmidt, 81 Ind. 264, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 248 ; Gibson v. St. L., K. 
 C. & N. Ry., 8 Mo. App. 488; Stott v. Q. T. Ry., 24 Up. Can. (C. P.) 347 ; 
 Borstu. L.S. &. M. S. Ry., 66 N. Y. 639; Billmannv. I. C.^L.R.R.,76 Ind. 
 100, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 41 ; T. W. &. W. Ry. v. Harmon, 47 111. 298; 
 Geveke v. 1. R. & I. Ry., Mich. , 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 551.
 
 152 NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF LINE. 
 
 by the fright of a horse caused by a derrick negligently 
 permitted to remain projecting over a highway in such 
 a manner as would naturally frighten horses, 1 or by the 
 fright of a horse caused by a hand car left at a crossing, 2 
 or by the falling of burning coals from the fire box of 
 an engine of an elevated railway upon the back of -a 
 horse attached to a wagon on the street under the line, 
 and upon the hand of the driver of the wagon, thereby 
 causing the horse to run away and preventing the driver 
 from controlling him, the horse in running away strik- 
 the plaintiff and injuring him. 3 But the railway is not 
 liable for injuries resulting from the fright of horses on 
 a highway caused by the mere sight of the train, or by 
 the noises necessarily incident to its movement, 4 nor 
 where the fright is caused by the ordinary noise of a 
 train in passing over a bridge ; 5 nor is the railway liable 
 where the horses were frightened by an ordinary escape 
 of steam from a locomotive ; 6 and in Gilbert v. F. & P. 
 M. Ky. 7 it is ruled that the fact that a car was left at a 
 highway crossing, and that a horse was frightened, will 
 not render the railway liable, unless it be shown that 
 the necessary effect of leaving the car in that position 
 was to frighten horses who were not more than usually 
 nervous. 8 The railway owes to persons on the highway, 
 whose horses may be frightened by the sudden appearance 
 
 1 Jones v. H. R. R. 107 Mass. 261. 
 
 2 Vars v./G. T. Ry., 23 Up. Can. (C. P.) 143 ; Myers v. R. & D. R. R., 87 N. 
 C. 345, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 293 ; Bussian v. M. L. S. &. W. Ry., 56 Wise. 
 325, 10 Am. &. Eng. R. R. Cas. 716. 
 
 3 Lowery v. M. Ry., 99 N. Y. 158. 
 
 * Hahnu S. P. Ry., 51 Cal. 605; Flint v. N. & W. R. R., 110 Mass. 222; 
 Beatty v. C. I. Ry., 58 Iowa 242, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 210 ; Whitney v. 
 M. C. R. R., 69 Me. 208 ; Burton v. P. W. & B. R. R., 4 Harrington 252. 
 
 5 Favor v. B. & L. R. R., 114 Mass. 350. 
 
 6 Drayton v. N. P. R. R., 10 W T eekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 55 ; Mille/ v 
 P. & R. R. R., 11 Id. 369; Whitney v. M. C. R. R., 69 Me. 208. 
 
 7 51 Mich. 488. 
 
 8 See also P. S. Ry. v. Taylor, 104 Penna. St. 306.
 
 NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF LINE. 153 
 
 of a train, the duty of giving notice of the approach of 
 its trains j 1 and this rule is applicable where the high- 
 way is carried over the railway by a bridge. 2 
 
 149. The failure to give statutory signals of the ap- 
 proach of a train to a crossing is negligence as against 
 those whose horses are frightened by the appearance of 
 a train which has not given such signals. 3 
 
 150. The place where, or the circumstances under 
 which, the act is done may render that negligent which 
 otherwise would not be negligent : thus, in M. S. J. & 
 A. Ey. v. Fullarton, 4 the railway was held liable to a 
 driver waiting at a railway gate on a highway to cross 
 a level crossing for injuries to the horses and carriage 
 caused by his horses being frightened by an escape of 
 steam from an engine, resulting from the act of the en- 
 gine-driver in blowing off steam from the vent cocks of 
 the engine near the railway gate. Erie, C. J., said: "it 
 appears that the plaintiff's horses were using the road 
 as of right, and that the company were also as of right 
 exercising the power given them by their Act of cross- 
 ing the highway, and, if there had been nothing to show 
 that they were not exercising their rights in the ordi- 
 nary way and with due and reasonable care, the company 
 undoubtedly would not be liable for the misfortune 
 which has happened. But I am of opinion that the 
 evidence abundantly shows that the company, by their 
 servants, exercised their right of crossing the highway 
 in an inconvenient and improper manner. Whilst near 
 the gate which separates the railway from the road, the 
 driver blew off the steam from the mud cocks in front 
 
 1 Hudson v. L. & N. R. R., 14 Bush (Ky.) 303 ; S. & P. R. R. v. Strong, 61 
 Cal. 32G, 8 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 273. 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Barnett, 59 Penna. St. 259 
 
 8 Norton v. E. R. R., 113 Mass. 366; Prescott v. Same, Id. 370; Pollock v. 
 E. R. R., 124 Mass. 158. 
 
 * 14 C. B. N. S. 54, 108 E. C. L.
 
 154 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON HIGHWAYS. 
 
 of the engine, so that the plaintiff's horses became en- 
 veloped therein and frightened, and so became unman- 
 ageable. It is clear that the company have not used 
 their railway with that attention to the rights and safety 
 of the Queen's subjects which, under the circumstances, 
 they were bound to exercise." 1 
 
 151. It is contributory negligence to drive a horse 
 which is known to be afraid of locomotives on a high- 
 way adjoining a railway, 2 or to drive horses up to a 
 crossing as an express train is seen to be approaching; 3 
 or to lead a horse up to a railway crossing at which 
 there is standing an engine, from which steam is escap- 
 ing ; 4 or to drive a horse up to an obstruction at a cross- 
 ing which was known to have frightened other horses, 5 
 or to tie a team on a highway near a crossing ; 6 nor can 
 a traveller on the highway recover for injuries caused by 
 the fright of his horses when he has driven them into 
 an apparently dangerous passage between railway cars 
 obstructing the highway ; 7 but if the horse be known 
 not to be afraid of engines or cars, nor to be easily 
 frightened, it is not necessarily contributory negligence 
 to leave him untied and unattended near a railway 
 crossing. 8 In any such case the question of contributory 
 negligence is dependent wpon the more or less danger- 
 ous character of the point to which the horse is driven, 
 or where he is permitted to stand, and upon the driver's 
 knowledge of his horse's disposition. Of course, where 
 one drives or rides a horse up to a crossing upon the 
 
 1 See also Geveke v. G. R. & I. R. R., Mich. , 22 Am. & Eng. R. R' 
 Cas. 551. 
 1 P., W. & B. R. R. v. Stinger, 78 Penna. St. 219. 
 
 3 Rhoades v. C. & G. T. R. R., Mich. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 659. 
 * L. & N. R. R. v. Schmidt, 81 Ind. 2G4, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 248. 
 
 5 P. S. Ry. v. Taylor, 104 Penna. St. 306. 
 
 6 St. L. & St. F. Ry. v. Payne, 29 Kans. 166 
 
 7 Thompson v. C. L. & C. R. R., 54 Ind. 197 
 
 8 Southworth v. O. C. & N. R. R., 105 Mass. 342.
 
 MAINTENANCE OF CEOSSINGS. 155 
 
 Invitation of a railway flagman or gate-keeper, and the 
 horse is then frightened by a sudden escape of steam or 
 by other noises made in the operation of the railway, 
 the railway is liable, for the invitation of the flagman or 
 gate-keeper is an assurance that the crossing may be 
 safely approached. 1 
 
 IV. MAINTENANCE OF GRADE CEOSSINGS. 
 
 The railway is liable for injuries caused by highway crossings negli- 
 gently constructed or maintained. 
 
 152. Where the railway line is carried across a pre- 
 existing highway, it is generally the duty of the rail- 
 vay to keep the crossing in repair; 2 and this duty 
 includes the repairing of embankments, which are a 
 necessary part of the crossing ; 3 but the railway is not 
 bound to improve the highway so as to put it in better 
 order than it was before the railway crossed it. 4 The 
 test is, whether or not the crossing, as constructed and 
 maintained by the railway, unnecessarily impairs the 
 usefulness of the highway and interferes with the safe 
 enjoyment of that highway by the public f if it does, 
 the railway has not performed its duty in the premises ; 
 if it does not, the railway has done all that it ought to 
 be expected to do. The railway is not to be relieved 
 from the performance of this duty, because a street rail- 
 
 1 Borst v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 66 N. Y. 639; P. R. R. v. Horst, 16 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 567. 
 
 2 Farley v. C. R. I. & P. Ry., 42 Iowa 234; Ferguson v. V. & T. R. R., 13 
 Nev. 184; P. F. W. & C. Ry. v. Dunn, 66 Penna. St. 280; P. & E. R. R. v. 
 Commonwealth, SO Ky. 147, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 318 ; People v. C. & A. 
 Ry., G7 111. 118 ; State v. D. & S. E. R. R., 36 Ohio St. 436, 5 Am. & Eng. R. 
 E. Cas. 312. 
 
 3 Farley v. C. R., I. & P. Ry., 42 Iowa 234. 
 
 * Beatty v. C. I. Ry., 53 Iowa 242, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 210. 
 5 People v. N. Y., N. II. & II. R. R., 89 N. Y. 266, 10 Am. & Eng. E. R. 
 Cas. 230.
 
 156 MAINTENANCE OF CROSSINGS. 
 
 way whose line uses the highway and the crossing as a 
 part thereof, is under a like obligation to keep the cross- 
 ing in repair. 1 While, as a general rule, the railway is 
 not bound to keep in repair the crossings of highways, 
 which have not been legally laid out and opened, 2 yet, 
 when the railway has licensed a general and public use 
 of such a crossing, it is bound to maintain it in repair. 3 
 153. The railway is liable to passers on the highway 
 for a crossing so negligently constructed as to cause in- 
 juries to persons lawfully using it, 4 for instance, for a 
 defective planking of a crossing, 5 or for the mainte- 
 nance of its rails at such a height above the level of the 
 crossing as to endanger the safe transit of wagons, 6 or 
 for an obstruction of the crossing by a wreck, provided 
 more than a reasonably sufficient time for the removal 
 of the wreck has elapsed. 7 
 
 1 Masterson v. N. Y. C. & H. K R. E., 84 N. Y. 247, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 408. 
 
 2 F. & P. M. Ey. v. Willey, 47 Mich. 88, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 305 ; M., 
 K & T. Ey. v. Long, 27 Kans. 684. 
 
 3 Kelly v. S. M. E. E., 28 Minn. 98, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 264. 
 
 4 Eoberts v. C. & N. W. Ey., 35 Wis. 679 ; I. & St. L. E. E. v. Stout, 53 Ind. 
 143 ; Judson v. N. Y. & N. H. E. E., 29 Conn. 434 ; Maltby v. C. & W. M. Ey., 
 52 Mich. 108, 13 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 606 ; L., N. A. & C. E. E. v. Smith, 91 
 Ind. 119, 13 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 608. 
 
 5 P., F. W. & C. Ey. v. Dunn, 56 Penna. St. 280 ; Baughman v. S. & A. E. E., 
 92 Id. 335 ; Mann v. C. V. E. E., 55 Vt. 484, 14 Am, & Eng. E. E. Cas. 620 ; 
 Kelly v. S. M. Ey., 28 Minn. 9S, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 264 ; O'Connor v. 
 B. & L. E. E., 135 Mass. 352, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 362 ; Penna. Co. v. 
 Boylan, 104 111. 595, 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 734 ; Payne v. T. & B. E. E., 83 N 
 Y. 572, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 54 ; Wasmer v. D., L. & W. E. E., SO N. y! 
 212, 1 Am. & Eng. E.E. Cas. 122. 
 
 6 Oliver v. N. E. Ey., L. E. 9 Q. B. 409; M. & C. E. R. v. Hunter, 11 Wise. 
 160; Johnson v. St. P. & D. Ey., 31 Minn. 283, 15 Am. & Eng. E.E. Cas. 467. 
 
 7 P. S. Ey. v. Taylor, 104 Penna. St. 306 ; Paine v. G. T. Ey., 58 N. H. 
 611.
 
 GRADE CROSSINGS. 157 
 
 Where the railway line is laid upon a hightvay, travellers on that high 
 way may rightfully cross the line at any point, and not merely at 
 the intersection of that highway with other highivays. 
 
 154. Where a highway is used as a part of a rail- 
 way line, travellers on the highway have a right to cross 
 the railway line at any point, and not merely at the in- 
 tersections of other highways, and the railway is liable 
 to one injured while crossing at a point other than the 
 intersection of another highway, if the railway was in 
 any respect negligent in the operation of its line j 1 and 
 under such circumstances the railway is bound to ob- 
 serve, at every point of its line on the highway, the 
 same precautions which it is bound to observe at an 
 ordinary highway crossing. 
 
 V. THE DUTY OF THE RAILWAY IN THE OPERATION OF 
 ITS LINE AT GRADE CROSSINGS 
 
 It is the duty of the railway to operate its line at grade crossings of 
 highways, with due care for the rights of travellers on the highway. 
 
 155. The crossing at grade of a highway by a rail- 
 way line is always objectionable. It would undoubtedly 
 have been wise in the interests of the public, and eco- 
 nomical in the interest of railways, if the law had re- 
 quired that whenever a railway line crossed a pre-exist- 
 ing highway, it should be the duty of the railway to 
 carry its line over or under the highway ; and when- 
 ever a newly laid out highway crossed a pre-existing 
 railway line, it should be the duty of the municipality, 
 borough, or county, as the case might be, to carry its 
 highway over or under the railway line. 
 
 156. Where a railway line crosses a highway on the 
 
 1 L., N. A. & C. R. R. v. Head, 80 Ind. 117, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 619 ; 
 Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R, 75 Mo. 595, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 ; 
 Smedis v. B. & R. B. R. R., 88 N. Y. 13, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 445.
 
 158 railway's duty at grade crossings. 
 
 level, the relative rights and obligations of the railway 
 and of travellers on the highway are reciprocal, but it is 
 the privilege of the railway that its trains shall have the 
 right of way, and that all persons on the highway shall 
 yield precedence to the trains. 1 
 
 157. It is the duty of the railway to use such reason- 
 able precautions as will prevent collisions at such cross- 
 ings, exercising to that end such care and skill as pru- 
 dent and discreet persons, having the management of 
 such a business, would use, under the circumstances, of 
 the particular crossing. Where the line crosses a high- 
 way in or in the neighborhood of a town, and the cross- 
 ing is not protected by a gate, or by the presence of a 
 watchman, it is the duty of the railway to so moderate 
 and control the speed of its trains that the sound of the 
 whistle or bell of the engine will be an effectual warn- 
 ing to persons on the highway ; 2 but no rate of speed, 
 however high, is negligence per se. z Nor is a railway 
 required to run its trains at such a moderate rate of speed 
 that they can be stopped within the distance in which 
 obstacles on the line can be discovered at night by the 
 headlight. 4 Green, J., said pertinently, in R. & C. R. 
 R. v. Ritchie: 5 " The very purpose of locomotion by 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Goodman, 62 Penna. St. 329 ; C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; 
 Beisiegel v. N. Y. C. Ry., 40 N. Y. 9 ; Moore v. P. W. & B. R. R., 16 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 53 ; G. & C. R. R. R. v. Dill, 22 111. 264 ; T. & W. R. R. 
 v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185 ; Black v. B., C, R. & M. Ry., 38 Iowa 515. 
 
 1 C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; The State v. B. & O r R. R., 24 Md. 84 ; 
 Quimby v. V. C. Ry., 23 Vt. 387 ; Wilson v. Cunningham, 3 Cal. 241 ; P. R. R. 
 v. Long, 75 Penna. St. 257 ; Schultz v. P. R. R., 6 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 69 ; P. R. R. v. Lewis, 79 Penna. St. 33 ; Penna. Co. v. James, 81$ Id. 
 194 ; P. R. R. v. Ackerman, 74 Id. 265 ; P. R. R. v. Coon, 17 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 137. 
 
 3 R. & C. R. R. v. Ritchie, 102 Penna. St. 425 ; 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 267 ; Wallace v, St. L., L M. & S, Ry., 74 Mo. 594 ; Goodwin v. C, R. I. & P. 
 R. R., 75 Mo. 73, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 460 ; Powell v. M. P. Ry., 76 Mo. 
 80, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 467. 
 
 * L. & N. R. R. v. Milam, 10 Tenn. 223, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 507. 
 
 5 102 Penna. St. 425.
 
 SPEED AT GRADE CROSSINGS. 159 
 
 steam upon railways is the accomplishment of a high 
 rate of speed in the movement of passengers and freight. 
 It is authorized by law, and a railroad company in pro- 
 pelling its trains at high speed along its tracks in the 
 open country, is simply engaged in the lawful exercise 
 of its franchise. If it is evidence of negligence that a 
 train is run at this rate of speed, it must be because 
 running at a less rate is a legal duty ; but there is no 
 such duty established either by statute or decisions. 
 While there may, of course, be circumstances which re- 
 quire a diminished speed, it is only the force of those 
 circumstances which creates such a duty." Whether 
 the fact that the train, a collision with which on a high- 
 way crossing has caused the injury to the plaintiff, has 
 approached the crossing at a rate of speed in excess of 
 that permitted by statute, is to be regarded as negli- 
 gence on the part of the railway, depends on the pur- 
 view of the particular statute. 
 
 158. If the crossing be a specially dangerous one, it 
 is negligence in the railway if its train approaches the 
 crossing at the rate permitted by statute, provided that 
 rate be in excess of that which a due regard to the 
 safety of the public requires, 1 and it is for the jury to 
 determine whether or not the rate of speed of the train 
 be negligent, with reference to the more or less danger- 
 ous character of the crossing. 2 
 
 1 Shaber v. St. P., M, & M. Ry., 28 Minn. 103, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 185. 
 
 3 Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 75 Mo. 595, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 ; 
 Meyer v. M. P. R. R., 2 Neb. 319 ; Wilds v. H. R. R. R., 29 N. Y. 315 ; Lang- 
 hoff v. M. & P. du C. R. R., 19 Wise. 489 ; L. C. & L. R. R v. Goetz, 79 Ky. 
 442, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 627 ; Khinowski v. G. T. Ry., Mich. , 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 648 ; Massoth v. D. & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 531 ; T. 
 H. & I. R. R. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168, 6 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 84 ; I. & V. R. 
 R. v. McLin, 82 Ind. 435, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 237 ; P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. 
 Martin, 82 Ind. 476, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253 ; Salter v. M. & B. R. R. R., 
 88 N. Y. 42, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 437.
 
 1G0 STATUTORY SIGNALS. 
 
 159.' The effect of the railway's non-performance of the 
 duty of giving notice of the approach of its trains to a 
 grade crossing, when that duty is regulated by statute, 
 depends upon the terms of the particular statute, but it 
 may be said that in general statutory directions as to 
 giving notice of the approach of a train to a crossing 
 must be followed, and a failure to follow them is negli- 
 gence as to persons on the highway injured while cross- 
 ing the line. 1 
 
 160. It has been held that such regulations, being 
 primarily intended for the protection of persons on the 
 highway, the failure to give the notice thereby prescribed 
 is not negligence as to railway servants working on the 
 line f nor as to trespassers on the line, 3 nor as to per- 
 sons who, although on the highway, are not intending to 
 cross the line ; 4 nor as to passengers in trains, 5 nor as to 
 travellers approaching the line on a private way, 6 or on 
 a blind alley ; 7 nor as to travellers approaching the line 
 on a private way running through the railway's yard, 8 
 nor as to one who ties his team on the highway near a 
 
 1 A. & W. P. R. R. v. Wyly, 65 Ga. 120, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 262; A. 
 & S. R. R. v. McElmuny, 24 Ga. 75 ; L. L. & G. R. R. v. Rice, 10 Kans. 426 ; 
 C. B. R. R. v. Phillippi, 20 Id. 12 ; M. P. R. R. v. Wilson, 28 Id. 639 ; Peart 
 v. G. T. Ry., 10 Ont. Ap. 191, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 299 ; Faber v. St. P., 
 M. & M. Ry., 29 Minn. 465, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 277 ; W. R. R. v. Henks, 
 91 111. 406. 
 
 2 Randall v. B. & O. R. R., 109 TJ. 8. 478. 
 
 3 Harty v. C. R. R., 42 N. Y. 468 ; O'DonnelU. P. & W. R. R., 6 R. I. 211 ; 
 Bell v. H. & St. J. Ry., 72 Mo. 50, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 580. 
 
 * Cordell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 64 N. Y. 535 ; Byrne v. Same, 94 Id. 12 ; 
 E. T. V. & Ga. R. R. v. Feathers. 10 Lea (Tenn.) 103, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 446. 
 
 5 A. G. S. Ry. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112; L. & N. R. R. v. McKenna, 7 Lea 
 (Tenn.) 313, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 114. 
 
 6 Johnson v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. , 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 623. 
 T Byrne v. N. Y. C & H. R. R. R., 94 N. Y. 12. 
 
 8 Bennett v. G. T. Ry., 3 Ont. C. P. D. 446, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 627 ; 
 Hodges v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 71 Mo. 50, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 190. 
 
 9 St. L. & S. F. Ry. v. Payne, 29 Kans. 166, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 632.
 
 STATUTORY SIGNALS. 101 
 
 161. On the other hand it has been held that the 
 railway's omission to give the statutory signals is negli- 
 gence as to persons whose horses, while on the highway, 
 are frightened by the approach of a train ;* and gener- 
 ally that the omission of such signals is negligence as to 
 all persons, who being lawfully at or near a crossing are 
 exposed to injury by reason of the failure to give such 
 signals. 2 Indeed, the Supreme Court of Georgia has 
 gone so far, in one case, 3 as to hold that the omission of 
 such signals is negligence in the case of injury to a 
 horse which, having strayed upon the line, was run over 
 at a point beyond the crossing. 
 
 162. Probably the true doctrine is that the terms of 
 the particular statute must be first looked to in order to 
 determine the classes of persons for whose protection the 
 giving of the signals is prescribed, and that in subordi- 
 nation to the directions of the particular statute, the giv- 
 ing of such signals ought to be held to be intended for 
 the protection of all persons who, being rightfully upon 
 the highway, are injured by reason of the railway's non- 
 performance of the statutory duty. 
 
 163. Of course, the railway may excuse its non-per- 
 formance of the statutory duty by showing that the duty 
 was, on the particular occasion, omitted within the 
 bounds of a municipality whose ordinances lawfully en- 
 acted forbade the giving of signals within its limits. 4 . 
 The omission of statutory signals, obviously, is not neg- 
 ligence to persons whose injuries are not caused by such 
 
 1 Cosgrove v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 87 N. Y. 88, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 35 ; Rosenberger v. G. T. Ry., 8 Ont. Ap. 482, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 448 ; 
 y S. C. of Can. 311, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 8 ; Ransom v. C, St. P., M. & O. 
 Ry., 62 Wise. 178, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 16. 
 
 4 Wakefield v. C. & P. R. R., 37 Vt. 330 ; Hart v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 56 
 Iowa 166. 
 
 s W. & A. R. R. ?'. Jones, 65 Ga. 631, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 267. 
 
 * Penna. Co. v. Ilensil, 70 Ind. 569, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79. 
 11
 
 102 SIGN-BOARDS, GATES, AND FLAGMEN. 
 
 omissions, as where a boy who sees an approaching train 
 attempts to pass in front of it, and catching his foot 
 under the rail is held and run over; 1 or where a man 
 sees the smoke of an engine, but heedlessly assumes 
 that it is moving from instead of approaching the 
 crossing. 2 
 
 164. There are some authorities for the proposition 
 that when the railway has followed the statutory direc- 
 tions as to giving signals, etc., it has discharged its whole 
 duty in the premises ; 3 but the sounder doctrine would 
 seem to be that compliance with such statutory regula- 
 tions does not necessarily relieve the railway from the 
 necessity of taking such additional precautions as are 
 essentia] to the safety of passers on the highway. 4 
 
 165. Even when there is no statutory requirement as 
 to notice of a train's approach to a crossing, a railway is 
 negligent if due notice be not given of the approach of 
 its trains to a level crossing, and it is for the jury to 
 determine what notice is reasonable, under the circum- 
 stances, of the particular crossing. 5 
 
 166. The same principles are applicable to the rail- 
 way's non-performance of a statutory duty of erecting sign- 
 
 1 Pakalinsky v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 82 N. Y. 424, 2 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 251 ; Qf. L., N. A. & C. R. R. v. Head, 80 Ind. 117, 4 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 619. 
 
 2 Purl v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 72 Mo. 168, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 27. 
 
 3 C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Dougherty, 110 111. 521, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 292 ; 
 C. &A. R. R. v. Robinson, 106 111. 142, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 620; 
 Beisiegel v. N. Y. C. Ry., 40 N. Y. 9 ; Grippen v. Same, Id. 34. 
 
 * Richardson v. N. Y. C. Ry., 45 N. Y. 846 ; Bradley v. B. & M. Ry., 2 Cush. 
 539 ; Barry v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 N. Y. 289, 13 Am & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 615; Eaton v. F. R. R., 129 Mass 364, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 183. 
 
 5 Tolman v. S., B. & N. Y. R. R, 98 N. Y. 198 ; P. R. R. v. Ogier, 35 Penna. 
 St. 60 ; P. & T. R. R. v. Hagan, 47 Id. 244 ; Longenecker v. P. R. R., 105 Id. 
 328; Loucks v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 31 Minn. 526, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 305 ; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Dunn, 56 Penna. St. 280 ; Renwick v. N. Y. C. R. 
 R., 36 N. Y. 132 : O'Mara v. H. R. R. R., 38 N. Y. 445 ; Guggenheim v. L. S. 
 & M. S. Ry., Mich. , 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 546 ; Kelly v. St. P., M. 
 & M. Ry., 29 Minn. 1, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 93.
 
 FLAGMEN AND GATES. 163 
 
 boards at a level crossing, 1 but the failure of the railway 
 to maintain sign-boards at a crossing is not negligence 
 as to persons who, in fact, know of the existence and 
 the location of the crossing. 2 
 
 167. There is no rule of law which requires railways, 
 when not so required by statute, to maintain gates at 
 all crossings, 3 nor flagmen at all crossings ; 4 but, if it 
 be proven that the crossing, at which occurred the 
 injury sued for, is of such a character that the posting 
 of a flagman was necessary to the safety of travellers on 
 the highway, and would have prevented the particular 
 injury, the jury may then find negligence on the part 
 of the railway in its failure to post a flagman there. 5 
 Where a railway does employ a flagman at a crossing, 
 his failure to perform the duties of his post is negli- 
 gence on the part of the railway. 6 And the withdrawal 
 of the flagman by the railway, without notice to the 
 public, is negligence on the part of the railway ; 7 but 
 whatever be the character of the crossing, the failure 
 to post a flagman is not negligence as to persons whose 
 injuries are not due to the absence of the flagman. 8 
 
 168. Where a railway has, in obedience to statutory 
 requirements, erected gates at a level crossing, the fact 
 
 1 Shaber v. St. P., M. & M. R. R., 28 Minn. 103, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 185. 
 
 2 Haas v. G. R. & I. R R., 47 Mich. 401, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 268. 
 
 3 Stubley v. L. & N. VV. Ry., L. R. 1 Ex. 13. 
 
 * Beisiegel v. N. Y. C. R. R., 40 N. Y. 9 ; M. C. R.R. v. Neubeur, 62 Md. 391, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R, R. Cas. 261 ; Foy v. P., W. & B. R. R, 47 Md. 76 ; P. R. R. 
 v. Matthews, 36 N. J. L. 531 ; McGrath v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 59 N. Y. 
 468, 63 Id. 522 ; Pakalinsky v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 82 N. Y. 424, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 251 ; Weber v. N. Y. C. R. R., 58 N. Y. 459. 
 
 6 Welsch v. H. & St. J. R. R, 72 Mo. 551, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 75 ; 
 Kinsey v. Crocker, 18 Wise. 74; K. P. Ry.r. Richardson, 25 Kans. 391, 6 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 96 ; p]aton v. F. R. R., 129 Mass. 364, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 183. 
 
 6 Kessenger v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 56 N. Y. 543 ; Sweeney v. O. C. & N. R. R, 
 10 Allen (Mass ) 3n8 ; Dolan v. D. & H. C. Co., 71 N. Y. 285. 
 
 7 P. C. & St. L. R. R. v. Yundt, 78 Ind. 373, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 502. 
 
 8 Penna. Co. v. Hensil, 70 Ind. 569, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79.
 
 1G4 NEGLECT OF SELF-IMrOSED DUTY. 
 
 that the gates are open is an invitation to cross, and an 
 assurance that the line can be safely crossed j 1 and 
 when the railway's gate-keeper, flagman, or train hand 
 invites a traveller on the highway to cross the line, 
 the traveller is not bound to exercise the same degree 
 of care which he would be expected to exercise if no 
 such invitation were given ; 2 but such an invitation by 
 a servant of the railway will not excuse a failure by the 
 injured person to exercise any care for his own safety. 3 
 It is the duty of gatemen to close the gates when a 
 train approaches a crossing, and the railway is not liable 
 to a traveller on the highway who is injured while 
 attempting to drive across the line before a moving 
 train, by the wheel of his carriage being caught in the 
 closing gate. 4 
 
 169. It has been held that the failure of the railway 
 to perform a self-imposed duty is not negligence ; thus, 
 where a railway, at a level crossing for foot passengers, 
 had voluntarily erected swing gates, and usually locked 
 the gates when a train was approaching, the fact that 
 on a particular occasion the gates were not locked, was 
 held not to be such negligence as rendered the railway 
 liable for the death of a person who walked on the line 
 at the crossing and was run over. 5 On the other hand, 
 in P. & R. R. R. v. Killips, 6 a jury were permitted to 
 find a railway negligent in that, having voluntarily 
 maintained a watchman and gates at a crossing of its 
 line by a city street, the gates were open and no watch- 
 man in attendance at a time when the plaintiff's dece- 
 
 1 Stapley v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., L. R. 1 Ex. 21 ; Wanless v. N. E. Ry., L. R. 
 6 Q. B. 481 ; Sharp r. Glushing, 96 N. Y. 676, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 372. 
 ' Lunt v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 1 Q. B. 277. 
 s P. & R. R. R. v. Boyer, 97 Penna. St. 91, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 172. 
 
 * Peck v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 50 Conn. 379. 
 
 5 Skelton v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 2 C. P. 631 . See also Cliff v. M. Ry., L. 
 R. 5 Q. B. 258 ; McGrath v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 59 N. Y. 468, 63 Id. 522. 
 
 • 88 Penna. St. 413.
 
 NEGLECT OF SELF-IMPOSED DUTY. 165 
 
 dent, driving a horse on the street, was killed by being 
 thrown from his carriage in consequence of his horse 
 being frightened by the sudden appearance of an 
 engine, and by its excessive whistling. 1 So, the rail- 
 way has been 'held liable, when, under circumstances 
 of danger, the invitation to cross was given by its ser- 
 vant, who, while employed to perform other duties at 
 the crossing, had, for several years, voluntarily assumed 
 the duty of warning persons not to cross the line when 
 trains were approaching. 2 Probably the right doctrine 
 is, that if the particular precaution, although self im- 
 posed by the railway, has been observed for so long a 
 time, that travellers on the highway have become accus- 
 tomed to rely on it as a means of protection to them, 
 then, and then only, its discontinuance ought to be 
 regarded as negligence on the part of the railway. 
 
 170. Where the surrounding circumstances render 
 the crossing specially dangerous to travellers on the 
 highway, as where the line is curved, or there are 
 obstructions to the view, it is the duty of the railway to 
 take precautions commensurate to the danger, and it is 
 for the jury to determine whether or not the absence of 
 any particular precaution is negligence. 3 
 
 171. It is a duty incumbent on the railway to cause 
 
 1 See, also, P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Yundt, 78 Ind. 373, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 502. 
 
 2 Peck v. M. C. R. R., Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 257. 
 
 3 James v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 2 C. P. 634, note; Bilbee v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 
 18 C. B. N. S. 584, 114 E. C. L. ; Ford v. L. & S. W. Ry., 2 F. & F. 730 ; Stub- 
 ley v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 1 Ex. 13 ; Stapley v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., Id. 21 ; 
 Cliff tr. M. Ry., L. R. 5 Q. B. 258 ; C. R. R. v. Feller, 84 Penna. St. 226; C. I. 
 Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Mackay v. N. Y. C. R. R., 35 N. Y. 75; Richard- 
 son v. Same, 45 Id. 846; P. R. R. v. Matthews, 36 N. J. L. 531 ; Funston v. C, 
 R. I. & P. Ry., 61 Iowa 452, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 640 ; Nehrbas v. C. P. R. 
 K., 62 Gal. 320, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 370 ; Thomas v. D L. & W. R. R., 19 
 Hlatoliford 533; Roberts v. C. & N. W. I.'y., 35 Wise. 679; Eilert v. G. B. 
 & M. R. R., 48 Wise. 606; Dimick v. C. & N. W. Ry., 80 111. 338; P. P. & J. 
 R. R. v. Siltman, 88 111. 529.
 
 106 FLYING SWITCHES, ETC. 
 
 its trains to approach and pass the crossing with care, 
 The performance of this duty requires, as before stated, 
 notice to travellers on the highway of the existence and. 
 location of the crossing, and of the trains' approach 
 thereto, and such a rate of speed of the train as, 
 under the conditions of the crossing, is prudent with 
 regard to travellers on the highway. The performance 
 of this duty also requires a careful operation of the line 
 in other respects: thus, trains should not pass each 
 other at speed on the crossing j 1 extraordinary precau- 
 tions should be taken if a train or an engine is to be 
 backed over a crossing ; 2 and especially must the 
 greatest care be observed, if cars are to be kicked, or 
 sent on a flying switch over a crossing f but the back- 
 ing of a train or engine over a. crossing, or the passing 
 of a crossing by cars on a flying switch, cannot properly 
 be said to be negligent, if precautions commensurate 
 with the danger are observed by the railway. 4 
 
 172. It is the duty of the railway to adequately light 
 its engines and cars at night, that its servants thereon 
 may be enabled to see obstructions, animate and inani- 
 
 1 West v. N. J. R. R., 3 Vroom 91. 
 
 2 Hutchinson v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 398, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 280 ; Maginnis v. N. Y. C. R. R., 52 N. Y. 215 ; Kissinger v. N. Y. & H. 
 R. R., 56 N. Y. 538 ; S. & M. R. R. v. Shearer, 58 Ala. 672 ; Johnson v. St. P. 
 & I). By , 31 Minn. 283, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas 407; Levoy v. M. Ry., 3 
 Ont. 623, 15 Am. & Eng. It. R. Cas. 478 ; Howard v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 
 Minn. 21 1, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 283. 
 
 3 Troutman v. P. & R. R. R., 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 455; Kay 
 v. P. R. R., 65 Penna. St. 269 ; Ferguson v. W. C. Ry., 63 Wise. 145, 19 Am. 
 A: Eng. R. R. Cas. 285; Howard v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 214, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 283 ; Butler v. M. & St. P. Ry., 28 Wise. 487 ; Brown v. N. 
 Y. C. R. R., 32 N. Y. 600 ; P. R. R. v. State to use of McGirr, 61 Md. 108, 19 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 326 ; I. C. R. R. v. Bachas, 55 111. 379 ; C, R. I. & P. 
 R. R. v. Dignan, 56 111. 487 ; Stillwell v. C. R. R., 34 N. Y. 29; C. & A. R.R. 
 r. Garvey, 58 111.83. 
 
 4 Bohan v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 58 Wise. 30, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374; 
 01 Wise. 391, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 276 ; Hogan v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 59 
 Wise. 139, 15 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 439.
 
 LIGHTING ENGINES, ETC., AT NIGHT. 167 
 
 mate, upon the line at as great a distance as possible, 
 by the use of the best appliances in practical use j 1 but 
 the railway is not to be held liable for injuries that 
 result, without negligence on its part, from the light 
 becoming obscured by the operation of natural causes, 
 as where the headlight of a locomotive became so ob- 
 scured by a driving mist that an obstruction on the 
 line could not be seen by the engine-driver. 2 It is also 
 the duty of the railway to have its trains adequately 
 equipped with brakes, and manned by a sufficient num- 
 ber of hands to promptly control the movement of the 
 train, thus, it has been held to be negligence in the rail- 
 way to permit an engine to pass a crossing without an 
 eno-ine-driver and under the sole control of a fireman. 3 
 However questionable may be that decision, there is no 
 doubt that the servants on the train must be vigilant 
 and attentive to their duties when the train approaches 
 a crossing ; 4 and the presence of strangers in the cab of 
 the engine as it approaches a crossing, may, properly, 
 be held to be negligence on the part of the railway, on 
 the ground that their presence diverts the attention of 
 the engine-driver and fireman, when their attention 
 should be concentrated on the performance of their 
 duties. 5 
 
 1 N. A C. R. R. v. Smith, 6 Hiesk. 174; Smedis v. B. & R. B. R. R., 88 N. 
 Y. 13, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 445. 
 
 2 L. & N. R. R. v. Melton, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 262. 
 
 3 O'Marra v. H. R. R. R., 38 N. Y. 445. 
 
 * St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Matthias, 50 Ind. 65 ; Frick v. St. L., K. C.& N. Ry., 
 75 Mo. 595, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280. 
 6 Marcott v. M., H. & O. Ry., 47 Mich. 1, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 548.
 
 108 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AT CROSSINGS. 
 
 VI. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AT GRADE CROSSINGS. 
 
 It is the duty of travellers on the highivay, when approaching a grade 
 crossing, to exercise a prudent care for their own safety, and to that 
 end to look and listen, in order to satisfy themselves that it is safe to 
 cross the line. 
 
 173. It is the duty of travellers upon the highway, 
 whether on foot, or mounted, or in wagons, to exercise 
 a care for their own safety in approaching the line, and 
 especially to look and listen before attempting to cross 
 the line. 1 This rule is also applicable to horse cars 
 crossing the lines of steam railways, and it is the duty 
 of the drivers of such cars to look and listen before 
 crossing the line. 2 But where the testimony as to the 
 plaintiff's failure to look and listen, or, in other re- 
 spects, to exercise care, is contradictory, the question 
 is, of course, for the jury. 3 
 
 174. There are many authorities for the proposition, 
 that where the plaintiff's case shows that the person in- 
 jured did not look and listen before crossing the line, 
 it is the duty of the judge to nonsuit the plaintiff or to 
 direct a verdict for the defendant. 4 Other authorities 
 
 1 N. P. R. R. v. Heilraan, 49 Penna. St. 60 ; C, R. I. & P. R. R. v. Hous- 
 ton, 95 U. S. 697 ; State v. M. C R. R., 76 Me. 357, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 312; P. R. R. v. State, to use of McGirr, 61 Md. 108, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 326 ; Parker v. W. & W. R. R., 86 N. C. 221, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 420 ; Butterfield v. W. R. R., 10 Allen 532 ; Haslan v. M. & E. R. R., 4 Vroom 
 147 ; Peck v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 50 Conn. 379, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 633 ; G. H. & S. A. Ry. v. Bracken, 57 Tex. 71, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 691 ; Pence v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 63 Iowa 746, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 366; 
 Kelley v. H. & St. J. R. R., 75 Mo. 13S, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 638. 
 
 2 P. & R. R. R. v. Boyer, 97 Penna. St. 91, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 172; 
 Mantel v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., M., St. Ry. v. Same, 33 Minn. 62, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 362. 
 
 1 Shaw v. Jewett, 86 N. Y. 616, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. Ill ; H. R. R. v. 
 Coyle, 55 Penna. St. 396 ; Hoye v. C. & N. W Ry., 62 Wise. 666, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 347 ; P. R. R. v. Bock, 93 Penna. St. 427, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 20. 
 
 4 P. R. R. v. Beale, 73 Penna. St. 504 ; C. R. R. v. Feller, 84 Id. 226 ; 
 Schultz v. P. R. R., 6 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 69 ; Gerety v. P., W. &
 
 DUTY TO LOOK AND LISTEN. 169 
 
 hold that it is for the jury to decide whether, under the 
 circumstances, the plaintiff's failure to look and listen 
 was such contributory negligence as should defeat his 
 recovery. 1 It is held, in another line of authorities, 
 that only where the plaintiff's case discloses a failure to 
 look and listen before crossing, or otherwise to exercise 
 care for his own safety, when the view of the line was 
 unobstructed, and there were no circumstances to per- 
 turb his judgment or impede his action, is the court 
 
 B. R. E., 81 Penna. St. 274 ; C. R. I. & P. R. R. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697 ; Scho- 
 field v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 114 U. S. 615 ; Carroll v. P. R. R., 12 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 348 ; M. C. R. R. v. Neubeur, 62 Md. 391, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 261 ; R. & C. R. R. v. Ritchie, 102 Penna. St. 405, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 267 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Hobbs, Md. ,19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 337 ; U. P. 
 Ry. v. Adams, 33 Kans. 427, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 376 ; Moore v. P., W. & 
 B. R. R., 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 53 ; Tully v. F. R. R., 134 Mass. 499, 
 14 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 682 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Miller, 25 Mich. 274 ; Mah- 
 len v. L. S. &. M. S. Ry., 49 Mich. 585, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 687 ; Powell 
 v. M. P. Ry., 76 Mo. 80, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 467 ; Wright v. B. & M. R. 
 R., 129 Mass. 440, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 121 ; Haas v. G. R. & I. R. R, 47 
 Mich. 401, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 268 ; Henze v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 71 
 Mo. 636, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 212 ; P. R. R. v. Righter, 42 N. J. 180, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 220 ; Turner v. H. & St. J. R. R., 74 Mo. 603, 6 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 38. 
 
 1 C. I. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Hutchinson v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 
 398, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 ; Tyler v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., 137 Mass. 
 238, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 297 ; Bower v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 61 Wise. 
 457, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 301 ; Loucks v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 31 Minn. 
 526, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 305 ; Shaber v. St. P., M. & M. R. R., 28 Minn. 
 103, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 185 ; Funston v. O, R. I. & P. Ry., 61 Iowa 452, 
 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 640 ; Spencer v. I. C. R. R., 29 Iowa 55 ; Davis v. 
 N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 47 N. Y. 400 ; Renwick v. N. Y. C. R. R., 36 N. Y. 
 132 ; Duffy v. C. & N. W. Ry., 32 Wise. 269 ; Eagan v. F. R. R., 101 Mass. 315 ; 
 T. H. & I. R. R. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 84 ; P. C. & 
 St. L. Ry. v. Martin, 82 Ind. 476, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253 ; Kelly v. St. 
 P., M. & M. Ry., 29 Minn. 1, 6 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 93 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. 
 Dimick, 96 111. 42, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 201 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Miller, 
 46 Mich. 532, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 89 ; Plummer v. E. R. R., 73 Me. 591, 
 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 165 ; Moore v. C. R. R.,,47 Iowa 688j Laverenz v.C, 
 R. I. & P. Ry.,,56 Iowa 689, 6 Am. & Eng. R. IL Cas. 274 ; Bonnell v. D., L. 
 & W. R. R., 39~N. "j".L.'~I59; Randall v. C. R. R. R., 132 Mass. 269 ; Stackus 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R, 79 N. Y.464; Kellogg v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 
 79 N. Y. 72 ; Shaw v. Jewett, 86 N. Y. 616 ; Greany -. L. I. R. R., 101 N. Y. 
 419.
 
 170 DUTY TO LOOK AND LISTEN. 
 
 authorized in entering a nonsuit, or directing a verdict; 
 but that, under other circumstances, it is for the jury to 
 determine the measure of the duty of the person in- 
 jured. 1 
 
 175. There does not, however, seem to be any sound 
 reason why any different rule should be enforced by the 
 courts in cases of crossing accidents from that which 
 prevails in all other actions grounded upon negligence, 
 and in which contributory negligence is available as a 
 defence. There is, in every case, a preliminary question 
 for the judge to determine, and that is, whether, assum- 
 ing the truth of the testimony and all the inferences 
 that legitimately can be drawn from it, the jury would, 
 as reasonable men, be justified in finding a verdict in 
 favour of the party on whom the burden of proof rests. 
 The application of that rule of procedure would leave 
 to the jury the question of the effect of the failure of 
 the injured person to look and listen, except in those 
 cases where that failure, being proven or conceded as a 
 fact by the plaintiff's case, was so obviously a contri- 
 butory cause of the plaintiff's injury, and so incontro- 
 vertibly negligent that a jury of reasonable men would 
 not be justified in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. 
 The hard and fast rule, first enunciated in the Penn- 
 sylvania cases, that under all circumstances the person 
 injured must " stop, look, and listen " before crossing a 
 railway line, has no statutory basis, and is really a ju- 
 dicial usurpation of the function of the jury, for there 
 are conceivable cases in which the person injured might 
 justifiably go upon the railway's line without pausing to 
 " stop, look, and listen," as, for instance, when a flag- 
 
 1 Laverenz v. O, K. I. & P. Ey., 56 Iowa 689, 6 Am. & Eng. B. R. Cas. 274 ; 
 Carlin v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 37 Iowa 316 ; Benton v. C. R. R., 42 Iowa 192; 
 Artz v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 34 Iowa 153 ; Connelly v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 88 N. Y. 346, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 459 ; N. C. Ry. v. State, to use of 
 Burns, 54 Md. 113, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 66.
 
 DUTY OF INCREASED CAKE. 171 
 
 « 
 
 man invites him to cross, or when a gate protecting the 
 crossing stands open, or when the view of the line is so 
 obstructed that nothing can be seen, and a storm of 
 such severity is raging that no sounds incident to the 
 movement of trains could possibly be heard. The 
 Pennsylvania rule also goes further than that in most 
 other jurisdictions, in that it requires the person injured 
 not only to "look and listen," but also to "stop;" yet, 
 in most cases, one who approaches the crossing of a rail- 
 way line can effectually care for his safety by looking 
 and listening, without stopping. 
 
 176. There is, of course, no doubt that he is con- 
 tributorily negligent who attempts to cross a railway 
 when he sees or hears that a train is moving towards 
 the crossing. 1 
 
 177. Where the view of the line from the highway 
 is obstructed, or the crossing is in other respects spe- 
 cially dangerous, it is the duty of the traveller to exercise 
 a higher degree of care, and if he cannot, by looking 
 and listening, satisfy himself that it is prudent to cross 
 the line, he must stop, 2 or he must adopt such other pre- 
 cautions as ought to be taken under the particular cir- 
 cumstances of the case ; thus, where the view of the line 
 is obstructed it may be the duty of a traveller in a 
 
 .wagon to get out and lead his horse up to and over the 
 crossing; 3 yet, in P. R. R v. Ackerman, 4 a traveller 
 before sunrise on a foggy morning having approached 
 the line at a level crossing, there being snow on the line 
 which deadened the sound of the train, stopped his 
 wagon about ten steps from the line, where his view was 
 
 1 Grows v. M. C. R. R., 67 Me. 100 ; 0., R. I. & P. Ry. v. Bell, 70 111. 102 ; 
 Got hard v. A. G. S. R. R, G7 Ala. 114. 
 
 a Schsefert v C, M. & St. P. Ry., 62 Iowa 624, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 690; Haas v. G., R- & I. Ry., 47 Mich. 401, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 268; 
 Cordell v N. Y. C & H. R. R. R. 64 N. Y. 535, 70 Id. 119. 
 
 3 P. R. R. v. Beale, 73 Penna. St. 504. * 74 Penna. St. 265.
 
 172 EXCUSES FOR CARELESSNESS. 
 
 obstructed by cars on a siding, and after looking and 
 listening, without seeing or hearing any train, drove 
 upon the line and was struck by a train which had given 
 no warning of its approach, and it was held that the 
 traveller had performed his whole duty in the premises. 
 Where one track of a double tracked line is obstructed 
 at a crossing by either a stationary or a moving train, it 
 is contributory negligence for a passenger to go upon the 
 line without looking up and down the other line of 
 rails. 1 
 
 178. The rule under consideration has no application 
 to cases where the plaintiff's failure to stop, look, and 
 listen was not a proximate cause of the injury, as where 
 the plaintiff was injured because a cork of his horse's 
 shoe was caught and held in a crevice between the planks 
 on the crossing. 2 
 
 179. The non-performance by the person injured of 
 the duty of approaching the crossing with care will not 
 be excused by the fact that the train, by collision with 
 which he was injured, was a special train ; 3 nor that the 
 train was behind time ; 4 nor that tliere was a failure on 
 the part of the railway to give notice of the approach of 
 the train to the crossing ; 5 nor that the train was run- 
 
 1 Stapley v. L., B. & S. C. Ry., L. R. 1 Ex. 21 ; Skelton v. L. & N. W. Ry., 
 L. R. 2 C. P. 361 ; Carroll v. P. R. R, 12 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 348 ; 
 Pence v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 63 Iowa 746, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 366. 
 
 * Baughman v. S. & A. R. R., 92 Penna. St. 335. 
 
 3 Schofield v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 114 U. S. 615, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 353. 
 
 * Salter v. U. & B. R. R. R., 75 N. Y. 273 ; The State v. P., W. & B. R. R., 
 47 Md. 76. 
 
 5 Davey v. L. & S. W. Ry., 11 Q. B. D. 213, 12 Id. 73 ; C, R. I. & P. R. R. 
 v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697 ; I. & G. N. Ry. v. Jordan, Tex. , 10 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 301 ; C. & R. I. R. R. v. McKean, 40 III. 218 ; Kelley v. H. & St. J. 
 R. R, 75 Mo. 138, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 638 ; W., St. L. & P. Ry. v. 
 Wallace, 110 111. 114, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 359; U. P. Ry. v. Adams, 33 
 Kans. 427, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 376 ; Henze v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 71 
 Mo. 636, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 212 ; P. R. R. v. Righter, 42 N. J. 180, 2
 
 EXCUSES FOE, CARELESSNESS. 173 
 
 ning at a rate of speed in excess of that permitted by a 
 municipal ordinance; 1 nor that an engine at night had 
 a train hand's lantern hung in front of it instead of an 
 ordinary headlight. 2 
 
 180. It may, however, not unreasonably be considered 
 that the railway's non-performance of its duty in this 
 respect ought to have the effect of relieving the plaintiff 
 of the necessity of exercising as high a degree of care as 
 would have been incumbent on him if the railway had 
 performed its duty in the premises; 3 thus, it has been 
 held that, where in the making of a flying switch over 
 a highway crossing, the engine has passed the crossing, 
 a person on the highway is not bound to anticipate the 
 coming of the detached cars, and it is for the jury to 
 determine whether he is negligent in going upon the 
 line without looking and listening. 4 It has also been 
 held that the failure of the servants of the railway to 
 give due notice of the approach of a train to a station 
 or a level crossing (as, for instance, by neglecting to 
 whistle or to sound the engine bell) may put to sleep 
 the vigilance of a traveller approaching the station or 
 the crossing, and may relieve him of the necessity of 
 stopping to look and listen before going upon the line; 5 
 and in D., W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, 6 it was held that 
 the neglect of the driver of a lighted express train in 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 220; Shaw v. Jewett, 86 N. Y. 616, 6 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. Ill ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Sweeney, 52 111. 325; Rothe v. M. & St. P. 
 Ry., 21 Wise. 256. 
 
 1 Kelley v. H. & St. J. R. R., 75 Mo. 138, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 638. 
 
 * Mahlen v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 49 Mich. 585, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 687. 
 
 3 W., St. L. & P. Ry. v. Wallace, 110 111. 114, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 359 ; Gaynor v. O. C. & N. Ry., 100 Mass. 208 ; Chaffee v. L. R. R., 104 Id. 
 108 ; Copley v. N. H. & N. Co., 136 Id. 6, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 373 ; 
 Ernst v. H. R. R., 39 N. Y. 61. 
 
 4 Butler v. M. & St. P. Ry., 28 Wise. 487 ; Ferguson v. W. C. Ry., 63 Wise. 
 145, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 285. 
 
 5 P. R. R. v. Ogier, 35 Penna. St. 60 ; P. & T. R. R. v. Hagan, 47 Id. 244. 
 «3 App. Cas. 1155.
 
 174 PRESUMPTION AS TO CARE. 
 
 not whistling when approaching a station at night was 
 causa causans of injury to a person who, having crossed 
 behind a stationary train, had come on the line without 
 looking and been run over. 
 
 181. Even if the person injured has been contributorily 
 negligent in heedlessly going upon the line, the railway 
 will nevertheless be liable to him, under the rule in 
 Davies v. Mann, if the railway servants, having discov- 
 ered his perilous situation in time to stop the train 
 before striking him, negligently fail to stop it. 1 
 
 182. It is held in some jurisdictions, that, in the ab- 
 sence of proof, the presumption is that the person in- 
 jured did look and listen, or in other words, that he was 
 not contributorily negligent, 2 but this presumption is re- 
 butted when testimony to the contrary has been adduced 
 on the part of the railway, and in such a case the jury 
 should be directed that if they believe that testimony, 
 they should find for the railway. 3 In other jurisdictions 
 it is held that where it is proven that the decedent, 
 being possessed of ordinary faculties and intelligence, was 
 struck at a level crossing by a moving and lighted train, the 
 presumption is that he was contributorily negligent in 
 not looking and listening, for if he had looked and 
 listened he must have seen the train, and he would not 
 have been struck. 4 Of course this last-mentioned pre- 
 sumption has no application to a case where, if the per- 
 son injured had looked and listened, he could not in all 
 probability have seen or heard any warning of danger, 
 
 1 Kean v. B. & O. R. R., 61 Md. 154, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 321 ; Strong 
 v. P. R. R., 61 Cal. 326, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 273 ; Kelley v. H. & St. J. 
 R. R., 75 Mo. 138, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 638. 
 
 * C. V. R. R. v. Hall, 61 Penna. St. 361 ; C. & P. R. R. v. Rowan, 66 Id. 393 ; 
 P. R. R. v. Weber, 76 Id. 157 ; Weiss v. P. R. R., 79 Id. 387, 87 Id. 447 ; P. R. 
 R. v. Fortney, 90 Id. 323; Schum v. P. R. R, 107 Id. 8. 
 
 8 R. & C. R. R. v. Ritchie, 102 Penna. St. 425. 
 
 * Tolman v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R, 98 N. Y. 198 ; Chase v. M. C. R. R., 77 
 Me, 62, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 356.
 
 PRESUMPTION AS TO CARE. 176 
 
 as where a traveller was run over at a double-track 
 level crossing at night by a train, which was running 
 down grade with steam shut off, without a headlight, 
 and not sounding signals, while another train was ap- 
 proaching the crossing on the other track, with head- 
 light lit and sounding signals. 1 
 
 183. As between these conflicting presumptions, the 
 balance of sound reason seems to preponderate in favour 
 of the presumption that the person injured was negli- 
 gent if he does not prove that he was careful, for, if 
 the experience of mankind proves anything, it does 
 abundantly prove that men, women, and children are, 
 especially in this country, habitually reckless in ap- 
 proaching a railway line. Railway lines are here so 
 rarely fenced, so little guarded, so easily approached, 
 and so universally used as footwalks at all places save 
 in the neighborhood of large cities, and grade crossings 
 are unfortunately so much the rule and not the excep- 
 tion, that familiarity breeds contempt, and people ap- 
 proach and cross the line without realizing the danger 
 which they incur. Every man who drives or walks 
 about the country, in his own experience much more 
 frequently observes instances of carelessness than of 
 carefulness in the approach of people to railway lines. 
 Mr. Beach puts this view forcibly in his work on "Con- 
 tributory Negligence." 
 
 1 Smedis v. B. & R. B. R. R., 88 N. Y. 13, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 445-
 
 LIABILITY TO LICENSEES. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED 
 IN THE SECOND CATEGORY, THAT IS, LICENSEES. 
 
 I. The liability for injuries resulting from negligence in the construction 
 or in the failure to repair the railway's premises. 
 II. The liability for the negligent operation of the line. 
 III. The effect of notice not to trespass. 
 
 184. The second category includes persons who come 
 upon the railway's line or premises as mere licensees, 
 that is, persons who, being neither passengers, servants, 
 nor trespassers, and not standing in any contractual re- 
 lation to the railway, are permitted by the railway to 
 come upon its premises for their own interest, conve- 
 nience, or gratification. 
 
 I. THE LIABILITY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM NEG- 
 LIGENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OR IN THE FAIL- 
 URE TO REPAIR, THE RAILWAY'S PREMISES. 
 
 The railway is not liable to licensees for injuries resulting from the 
 condition of its premises or caused by its failure to maintain those 
 premises in repair, but it is liable to licensees for injuries caused by 
 negligence in the operation of its line. 
 
 185. As Martin, B., said in Bolch v. Smith, 1 " permis- 
 sion involves leave and license, but it gives no right." A 
 railway, like other owners of real estate, is, therefore, 
 not liable to mere licensees if its premises be out of repair, 
 
 1 7 H. & N. 736.
 
 PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE. 177 
 
 provided there be no such concealed danger as can be 
 considered a trap for the unwary. 1 
 
 186. Under this general rule railways have been held 
 not to be liable to visitors for the sufficiency and safety 
 of their station buildings f thus in Lary v. C, C, C. & I. 
 R. R., 3 the railway was held not to be liable to one who, 
 having taken refuge from a storm in a dilapidated build- 
 ing which had formerly been used as a freight house, 
 but having been for some time unused had not been 
 maintained in a condition of repair, was injured by the 
 falling of its roof; so, in Gillis v. P. R. R., 4 the plain- 
 tiff sued to recover for injuries caused by the breaking 
 down of the defendant's platform at a station under the 
 pressure of a crowd of sightseers, the plaintiff having 
 gone to the station to see a train carrying the President 
 of the United States pass the station. At the trial the 
 court directed a verdict for the defendant, and judg- 
 ment thereon was affirmed in error upon the ground 
 that the plaintiff having gone to the defendant's station 
 for no purpose of business, but for his personal gratifica- 
 tion, could not maintain the action ; so, in B. & O. R. 
 R. v. Schwindling, 5 the plaintiff, an infant of five years 
 of age, loitering upon the platform of defendant's station, 
 was struck by a passing train and injured, and it was 
 held that he was not entitled to recover, for the defend- 
 ant owed him no duty; so, in O. & R. V. R. R. v. 
 
 1 Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 374; Colli* v. Seldon, L. R. 3. Id. 495; 
 Southcotev Stanley 1 II. & N. 246; Wilkinson v. Fairrie, 1 II. &. C. 633 ; 
 Ivay v. Hedges, 9 Q. B. D. 80 ; Sutton v. N. Y. C. R. R . 66 N. Y. 243 ; Nichol- 
 son v. Erie By., 41 Id. 525; Batchelor v. Fortescue, 11 Q. B. D. 474; Maenner 
 t;. Carroll, 46 Md. 212; Vanderbeck v. Hendry, 34 N. J. Law 472; Severy v. 
 Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306; Latmorev. C. P. I. Co., 101 N. Y. 391. 
 
 * I. C. R. R. v. Godfrey, 71 111. 500 ; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Bingham, 29 
 Ohio St. 364 ; Lary v. G, C, C. & I. R. R., 78 Ind. 323, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 498. 
 
 s 78 Ind. 323. 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 498. 
 
 * 59 Penna. St. 139. 
 
 s 12 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 349. 
 12
 
 178 ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Martin, 1 the railway was held not to be liable to a mere 
 licensee, who, while driving over the railway's premises 
 was injured by falling into an unguarded excavation; 
 so, in Nicholson v. E. Ry., 2 and in Sutton v. N. Y. C. 
 & H. R. R. R., 3 the railway was held not to be liable 
 to licensees for a failure to set the brakes on cars stored 
 on a siding, or otherwise block them, to prevent their 
 movement by force of the wind, or by gravity. 
 
 II. THE LIABILITY FOE THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF 
 
 THE LINE. 
 
 187. While licensees must take the railway's premises 
 as they find them, and, therefore, cannot hold the rail- 
 way liable for a failure of duty in not maintaining its 
 premises in a condition of sound repair, yet the railway 
 is bound as to such licensees to exercise ordinary care 
 in the conduct of its business on the premises upon which 
 it permits the licensees to come, and it is liable to them 
 for injuries done to them by its want of such care. This 
 distinction between what may be called active and pas- 
 sive negligence is well illustrated by the judgments of 
 the Queen's Bench in Gallagher v. Humphrey, 4 where 
 a warehouse owner was held liable to a licensee for in- 
 juries caused by the negligence of a servant in his lower- 
 ing of a barrel from an upper story of the warehouse, 
 Cockburn, C. J., puts the distinction thus : " I quite 
 agree that a person, who merely gives permission to pass 
 and repass along his close, is not bound to do more than 
 to allow the enjoyment of such permissive right under 
 the circumstances in which the way exists, that he is not 
 bound, for instance, if the way passes along the side of 
 a dangerous ditch, or along the edge of a precipice, to 
 
 1 14 Neb. 295, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 236. J 41 N. Y. 525. 
 
 » 66 N. Y. 213. 4 6L.T. N. S. 684.
 
 ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE. 179 
 
 fence off the ditch or precipice. The grantee must use 
 the premises as the thing exists. It is a different thing, 
 however, where negligence on the part of the person 
 thus having granted the permission is superadded. It 
 cannot be that, having granted permission to use the way 
 subject to existing dangers, he is to be allowed to do any- 
 further act to endanger the safety of the person using 
 the way." In the same case, Wightman, J., said : " it 
 appears to me that such permission as is here alleged 
 may be subject to the qualification that the person giv- 
 ing it shall not be liable for injuries to persons using the 
 way arising from the ordinary state of things, or of the 
 ordinary nature of the business carried on, but it is dis- 
 tinguishable from the case of injuries wholly arising 
 from the negligence of that person's servants." 
 
 188. Upon this principle a railway has been held 
 liable to licensees for injuries caused by the movement 
 of trains by a flying switch. 1 So also, a railway has 
 been held to be liable in damages for its negligence in 
 leaving unattended the boiler of a steam pile driver, 
 which exploded and injured one who* was passing over 
 a footway which, without objection from the railway, 
 had been, for many years, used by the public. 2 It 
 may be therefore stated as a general rule, that where a 
 railway permits persons to cross its lines or premises, 
 it is bound, as to those persons, to exercise care in the 
 operation of its line, and it cannot treat them as tres- 
 passers. 3 It is, of course, for the jury to decide, whether 
 
 1 Kay v. P. R. K., 65 Penna. St. 269 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Troutman, 11 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 455. 
 
 2 Davis v. C. & N. W. Ry., 58 Wise. 646, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 424. 
 
 8 Davis v. C. & N. W. Ry., 58 Wise. 646, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 424 ; 
 Townley v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 53 Wise. 626, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 562 ; 
 Murphy v. B. & A. R. R., 133 Mass. 121 ; Barrett v. M. Ry., 1 F. & F. 361 ; 
 Barry v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 92 N. Y. 289, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 615 j 
 Goodfellow v. B., H. & E. R. R, 106 Mass. 461.
 
 180 NOTICE NOT TO TRESPASS. 
 
 the user was adverse under a claim of right, or merely 
 permissive as a licensee. 1 
 
 189. If the railway has, by the act of its servant, 
 given the person injured reason to believe that he might, 
 for a proper purpose, go on the line with safety, his pres- 
 ence on the line and his lack of vigilance is not contribu- 
 tory negligence. Thus, a person was held to be entitled 
 to recover, who, while travelling in charge of cattle, was 
 struck by a passing train on the main track when he 
 had gotten out of a cattle train on a siding to recover a 
 cow which had escaped from the train, the conductor 
 having assured him that the cattle train had the right 
 of way, and that he might safely go upon the line f but 
 the fact that the person injured is a servant of a con- 
 tractor engaged by a municipal corporation to construct 
 a bridge over the line, will not entitle him to go upon 
 the line, nor give him any status other than that of a 
 trespasser, if the circumstances show that the bridge 
 could have been built without requiring the servants of 
 the contractor to go upon the line. 3 
 
 III. THE EFFECT OF NOTICE NOT TO TRESPASS. 
 
 190. Where notices have been put up by a railway, 
 forbidding persons to cross the line at a particular point, 
 but these notices have been continually disregarded by 
 the public, and the railway's servants have not interfered 
 to enforce their observance, the railway cannot, in the 
 case of an injury occurring to any one crossing the line 
 at that point, set up the existence of the notices as 
 a defence to the claim of the person injured for dam- 
 ages. 4 
 
 1 F. R. R. v. Page, 131 Mass. 391, 7 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 86. 
 1 Fowler v. B. & O. R. R., 18 W. Va. 579, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480. 
 5 Sweeney v. B. & A. R. R., 128 Mass. 5, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 138. 
 * D. W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155 ; O'Conner v. B. & L. R. R., 
 135 Mass. 352, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 362.
 
 INCREASED DUTY TO OTHERS. 181 
 
 191. It must be remembered, in this connection, that 
 where a person comes upon the premises of the railway, 
 not as a trespasser, nor as a mere licensee, but for the 
 purpose of transacting some business of common inter- 
 est to both parties, or where that person comes upon the 
 railway premises in the course of the performance of a 
 contract based upon a valuable consideration, there is 
 an implied warranty to him that the premises are 
 reasonably safe, and that neither he, nor his property, 
 shall be injured by negligence upon the part of the 
 railway.
 
 182 LIABILITY TO TRESPASSERS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO PERSONS INCLUDED IN 
 THE THIRD CATEGORY, THAT IS, TRESPASSERS. 
 
 I. Trespassers on railway premises. 
 II. The turn-table cases. 
 
 III. Trespassers upon the cars. 
 
 IV. Trespassers on the line. 
 
 192. The third category includes trespassers upon the 
 railway's premises, line, or cars. 
 
 I. TRESPASSERS ON THE RAILWAY'S PREMISES. 
 
 Tlie railway is liable to trespassers upon its premises only for wilful 
 injury — that is, for its maintenance of a means of injury so essen- 
 tially dangerous that its existence is regarded as evidence of an in- 
 tention to do a wilful injury ; or, where the injury is done by the 
 negligence of a servant, for the failure of the servant to exercise or- 
 dinary care, when, by its exercise, before the doing of the injury, and 
 after he has discovered the injured person to be in peril, he cotdd 
 have avoided the doing of the injury ; or where the injury is done 
 by the act of a servant in the exercise of express authority delegated 
 to him by the railway to do the particular act. 
 
 193. Owners and tenants of real estate are liable to 
 trespassers for injuries caused by their unauthorized 
 maintenance of means of injury so essentially danger- 
 ous that their existence upon the premises can be re- 
 garded as not merely negligence upon the part of the 
 owner or tenant, but as evidence of an intention to do 
 wilful injury. The best illustrations of this doctrine are
 
 TRESPASSERS ON RAILWAY PREMISES. 183 
 
 to be found in the cases of spring guns and dog spikes ; 3 
 yet, even in such cases, a plaintiff who has gone upon 
 the defendant's premises, with notice of the existence of 
 the means of injury, will not be permitted to recover. 2 
 
 194. But a railway, as an owner or tenant of real 
 estate, is not to be held liable for injuries to a plaintiff 
 who has strayed from the highway, and been injured by 
 a cause of injury within the railway's premises, and not 
 adjoining the highway, and whose existence is not evi- 
 dence of an intention to do wilful injury. 3 Thus in 
 Hardcastle v. S. Y. Ry., 4 the plaintiff's decedent hav- 
 ing strayed from the highway at night, and fallen into 
 an unfenced canal-feeder within the defendant's pre- 
 mises, and been drowned, it was held that the railway 
 was not liable. So, in Gillespie v. McGowan, 5 the de- 
 fendant was held not to be liable for the death of a boy 
 of about eight years of age, who was drowned in an 
 open well upon a vacant lot owned by the defendant. 
 So, in Gramlich v. Wurst, 6 the rule is laid down, that 
 "where the owner of land, in the exercise of lawful 
 dominion over it, makes an excavation thereon which is 
 at such a distance from the public highway, that a per- 
 son falling into it would be a trespasser upon the land 
 before reaching it, the owner is not liable for an injury 
 thus sustained." 
 
 1 Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628, 15 E. C. L.; Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489, 
 2 E. C. L. ; Sarch v. Blackburn, 4 C. & P. 297, 19 E. C. L. ; Townsend v. 
 Walthen, 9 East 277. 
 
 2 Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Aid. 304, 5 E. C. L. ; Jordin v. Crump, 8 M. & W. 
 782. 
 
 3 Hardcastle v. S. Y. Ry., 4 H. & N. 67 ; Binks v. S. Y. Ry., 3 B. & S. 244, 
 113 E. C. L. ; Stone v. Jackson. 12 C. B. 199, 81 E. C. L. ; Blytb v. Topham, 
 Cro. Jac. 158 ; Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. 731, 97 E. C. L. ; Knight v. 
 Abert, 6 Penna. St. 472; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Id. 74; Gillespie v. Mc- 
 Gowan, 100 Id. 144 ; O. & R. V. R. R. v. Martin, 14 Neb. 295, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 236. 
 
 * 4 II. & N. 67. , 5 100 Penna. St. 144. 
 
 6 86 Penna. St. 74.
 
 184 THE TUEN-TABLE CASES. 
 
 II. THE TURN-TABLE CASES. 
 
 195. There, is a 'class of cases — the "turn-table 
 cases" — in most of which a result has been reached 
 which is not reconcilable with the authorities just re- 
 ferred to. Thus, in S. C. & P. Ry. v. Stout, 1 the plain- 
 tiff, a boy of six years of age, having been injured 
 while playing with other boys upon a turn-table within 
 the railway's premises, but unfenced and unlocked, the 
 injury having been directly caused by the other boys in 
 so turning the table while the plaintiff was on it that 
 his foot was crushed, Dillon, J., in the court below, di- 
 rected the jury, "that to maintain the action it must 
 appear by the evidence that the turn-table, in the con- 
 dition, situation, and place where it then was, was a 
 dangerous machine — one which, if unguarded or un- 
 locked, would be likely to cause injury to children ; that 
 if in its construction and the manner in which it was 
 left it was not dangerous in its nature, the defendants 
 were not liable for negligence ; that they were, further, 
 to consider whether, situated as it was in the defendant's 
 property in a small town somewhat remote from habita- 
 tions, there was negligence in not anticipating that in- 
 jury might occur if it was left unlocked or unguarded ; 
 that if they did not have reason to anticipate that chil- 
 dren would be likely to resort to it, or that they would 
 
 Gillespie v. McGowan, and Gramlich v. Wurst, do not seem to be recon- 
 cilable with the earlier case of Hydraulic Works v. Orr, 83 Penna. St. 332, 
 but in the later Pennsylvania case of Schilling v. Abernethey, 17 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases 364, where the owner of an alley, to which there was access 
 from a house which was let to a tenant, was held liable to the tenant's son, a 
 boy of twelve years of age, for injuries received by the falling upon him of the 
 wall of a privy while he was walking in the alley, the defendant having negli- 
 gently omitted to maintain the wall in a condition of good repair, Gordon, J., 
 cites Hydraulic Works v. Orr, and treats it as of unshaken authority. 
 
 1 2 Dillon 294, 17 Wall. 657.
 
 THE TURN-TABLE CASES. 185 
 
 "be likely to be injured if they did resort to it, then 
 there was no negligence." Judgment upon a verdict for 
 the plaintiff was affirmed in error, Hunt, J., saying, " that 
 the turn-table was a dangerous machine, which would be 
 likely to cause injury to children who resorted to it, 
 might fairly be inferred from the injury which actually 
 occurred to the plaintiff. There was the same liability 
 of injury to him, and no greater, that existed with refer- 
 ence to all children. When the jury learned from the 
 evidence that he had suffered a serious injury by his 
 foot being caught between the fixed rail of the roadbed 
 and the turning rail of the table, they were justified in 
 believing that there was a probability of the occurrence 
 of such accidents. So, in looking at the remoteness of 
 the machine from inhabited dwellings, when it was 
 proved to the jury that several boys from the hamlet 
 were at play there on this occasion, and that they had 
 been at play upon the turn-table on other occasions ; and 
 within the observation and to the knowledge of the em- 
 ployes of the defendant, the jury were justified in be- 
 lieving that children would probably resort to it, and 
 that the defendant should have anticipated that such 
 would be the case. As it was, in fact, on this occasion, 
 so it was to be expected that the amusement of the boys 
 would have been found in turning this table while they 
 were on it or about it. This could certainly have been 
 prevented by locking the turn-table when not in use by 
 the company. It was not shown that this would cause 
 any considerable expense or inconvenience to the de- 
 fendant. It could probably have been prevented by the 
 repair of the broken latch. This was a heavy catch, 
 which, by dropping into a socket, prevented the revolu- 
 tion of the table. There had been one on this table 
 weighing some eight or ten pounds, but it had been 
 broken off and had not been replaced. It was proved
 
 ISO THE TURN-TABLE CASES. 
 
 to have been usual with railroad companies to have, 
 upon their turn-tables, a latch or bolt, or some similar 
 instrument. The jury may well have believed that if 
 the defendant had incurred the trifling expense of re- 
 placing this latch, and had taken the slight trouble of 
 putting it in its place, these very small boys would not 
 have taken the pains to lift it out, and thus the whole 
 difficulty have been avoided. Thus reasoning, the jury 
 would have reached the conclusion that the defendant 
 had omitted the care and attention it ought to have 
 given, that it was negligent, and that its negligence 
 caused the injury to the plaintiff. The evidence is not 
 strong, and the negligence is slight, but we are not 
 able to say that there is not evidence sufficient to justify 
 the verdict. We are not called upon to weigh, to 
 measure, to balance the evidence, or to ascertain how we 
 should have decided if acting as jurors. The charge 
 was in all respects sound and judicious, and there being 
 sufficient evidence to justify the finding, we are not 
 authorized to disturb it." 1 
 
 196. On the other hand, in St. L., V. & T. H. R. IL 
 v. Bell, 2 where the facts differed from those in S. C. & P. 
 Ry. v. Stout only in that the turn-table, though unlocked, 
 was secured by a latch, it was held that the railway was 
 not liable ; and in Kolsti v. M. & St. L. Ry., 3 the turn- 
 table having been latched but not locked, the defendant 
 having been permitted, against the plaintiff's objection, 
 to prove that the fastenings of its turn-table were similar 
 in character to those in general use on turn-tables, the 
 judge having directed the jury that "the defendant was 
 
 1 This case is supported by Evanisch v. G. C. & S. F. Ry., 57 Tex. 123, 6 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 182 ; Nagel v. M. P. Ry., 75 Mo. 653, 10 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 702 ; A. & N. R. R. v. Bailey, 11 Neb. 332, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 742 ; K. C. Ry. v. Fitzsimraons, 22 Kans. 686, 18 Id. 34 ; Keffe v. M. & 
 St. P. Ry., 21 Minn. 207 ; Koons v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 65 Mo. 592. 
 
 s 81 111. 76. s 32 Minn. 133, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 140.
 
 THE TUKN-TABLE CASES. 187 
 
 not required to so fasten or secure the turn-table that 
 boys like the injured boy could not displace such fasten- 
 ings and put the turn-table in motion," and the jury 
 having found a verdict for the railway, an order refus- 
 ing a new trial was affirmed in error. The doctrine of 
 S. C. & P. Ry. v. Stout, and the cases of its class is, 
 that railways are to be held to be negligent if they do 
 not so construct the appliances which they use in the 
 conduct of their business, or so guard them, that children 
 cannot possibly injure themselves in meddling with those 
 appliances when they come upon the railway premises 
 or line, without any invitation, nor as mere licensees, 
 but as trespassers. This doctrine is far-reaching, and 
 if it is to be generally accepted, it must be applied in 
 many other cases besides those of turn-tables. It must 
 follow from this doctrine that railways will be liable, if 
 children injure themselves by stealing into a round- 
 house and putting in motion a locomotive engine, or by 
 loosening the brakes, taking away the blocks, and mov- 
 ing cars stored on a siding in a railway yard, or by 
 drowning themselves in a station water tank, or by fall- 
 ing into an ash pit, or by doing any one of a hundred 
 other things which they have no right to do, and which 
 it is not possible to prevent them from doing, unless 
 railways fence and guard by police their stations, 
 premises, yards, and lines. The miscarriage of justice 
 in these cases has probably resulted from a misappre- 
 hension of that line of cases, of which Daniells v. Potter, 1 
 Hughes v. Macfie, Abbott v. Macfie, 2 Lynch v. Nurdin, 3 
 and Clark v. Chambers 4 are the most conspicuous, and 
 which decide that one who leaves, in a public place 
 where t persons have a right to come, a dangerous 
 machine, is liable for injuries caused thereby to persons 
 
 1 4 C. & P. 262, 19 E. C. L. 2 2 H. & C. 744. 
 
 8 1 Q. B. 29, 41 E. 0. L. * 3 Q. B. D. 327.
 
 188 THE TURN-TABLE CASES. 
 
 who are, in fact, without fault, or who, being infants, 
 are, in law, incapable of being contributorily negligent. 
 The distinction between that line of cases and the turn- 
 table cases is in the public or private character of the 
 place in which the instrument of danger is exposed. 
 The misapprehension as to the legal effect of Lynch v. 
 Nurdin and the cases of its class is evidenced by the 
 statement of Hunt, J., in his judgment in S. C. & P. 
 Ey. v. Stout, that the injured child in Lynch v. Nurdin 
 was a trespasser, whereas the fact was that he was in- 
 jured while climbing upon a cart which, with a horse 
 attached to it, the defendant had left unattended in a 
 public street, where the injured boy had a right to be, 
 and where the defendant had no right to leave his horse 
 and cart unattended. In contrast with the "turn-table" 
 cases, the case of C. & A. K. R. v. McLaughlin, 1 may 
 be profitably considered, for in that case it was held that 
 it was not the duty of the railway to so guard its cars 
 when standing on its line as to prevent children from 
 injuring themselves by climbing over them. 
 
 III. TRESPASSERS UPON CARS. 
 
 197. As a general rule railways owe no duty to per- 
 sons who come upon their cars, engines, or other means 
 of transportation, as trespassers, and are, therefore, not 
 liable to them for anything less than wilful injury, 2 thus 
 
 1 47 111. 265. 
 
 1 T. W. & W. Ry. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245, 292; C. & B. R. R. v. Michie, 83 
 Id. 427 ; Brown v. M. R. R., 64 Mo. 536; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Beggs, 85 111. 
 80 ; Duff v. A. V. R. R., 91 Penna. St. 458 ; Gardner v. N. H. & N. R. R., 
 51 Conn. 143; Waterbury v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 17 Fed Rep. 671 ; Eaton 
 v. D., L. & W. R. R., 17 Fed. Rep. 671 ; S. W. R. R. v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252 ; 
 Hoar v. M. C. Ry., 70 Me. 65 ; Cauley v. P., C. & St. L. Ry., 95 Penna. St. 395, 
 98 Id. 498 ; Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Id. 210; H. M. & F. P. Ry. v. Connell, 88 
 Id. 520; Duff v. A. V. R. R., 91 Id. 458; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Smith, 46 Mich. 
 504, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 535.
 
 TRESPASSERS ON THE CARS. 189 
 
 in Duff v. A. V. R. R., 1 a mother sued to recover dam- 
 ages for the death of her son, fifteen years of age, a 
 newsboy, travelling by the connivance of the conductor 
 for the purpose of selling papers, and killed in a collis- 
 ion ; judgment on a verdict for the defendant was 
 affirmed in error, because the plaintiff was a trespasser 
 and the defendant owed him no duty ; so in C. & N. 
 W. Ry. v. Smith, 2 the railway was held not to be liable 
 to a boy who was injured in jumping from the step of 
 an engine upon which he trespassed, and from which 
 he was ordered off by the fireman ; so in Cauley v. P., 
 C. & St. L. Ry., 3 a boy, seven years of age, while play- 
 ing with some older boys upon a flat car, which was 
 being slowly shifted from one switch to another on the 
 defendant's line at the outskirts of a city, was ordered 
 by the defendant's servants to jump off, and in so doing 
 was injured. The boy and his parents brought separate 
 actions, and the cases were tried together, and the judge 
 at the trial directed a verdict for the defendant, judg- 
 ment upon which was affirmed in error, upon the 
 grounds that the father was contributorily negligent in 
 permitting his child to trespass upon the defendant's 
 line, and that the child being a trespasser the defendant 
 owed him no duty. 
 
 198. Nevertheless, although the person injured be a 
 trespasser, the railway will be liable to him if its servants, 
 in the exercise of authority delegated to them, expel 
 him with unnecessary violence. 4 The distinction is this: 
 if the trespasser's injuries are the result simply of the 
 
 1 91 Penna. St. 458. 
 
 * 46 Mich. 504, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 535. 
 
 1 95 Penna. St. 395, 98 Id. 498. 
 
 « L., N. A. & C. R. R. v. Dunkin, 92 Ind. 601, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 422 ; Hoffman v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 87 N. Y. 25, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 537 ; Schultz v. T. A. R. R., 89 N. Y. 242, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 412 ; 
 Carter v. L., N. A. & C. R. R., 98 Ind. 552, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 360.
 
 190 TRESPASSERS ON THE LINE. 
 
 railway's failure to perform that duty which it owes to 
 every one who is rightfully upon its cars or other means 
 of transportation, he cannot recover, for he was not 
 rightfully there, and the railway has not failed to per- 
 form any duty which it owed to him ; but if, on the 
 contrary, his injuries are the result of the violence with 
 which the railway's servants have expelled him from 
 the railway's cars or premises, or if those injuries were 
 caused by the circumstances under which he was ex- 
 pelled, as, for instance, from a train in motion, then 
 the railway is liable to him therefor, provided always 
 that the servant who expelled him was, in so doing, 
 acting in the exercise of authority delegated to him by 
 the railway. 
 
 IV. TRESPASSERS ON THE LINE. 
 
 199. A railway, where it has not granted to others a 
 permissive use of its line, is entitled to the exclusive 
 use and occupancy thereof. In England it is, and it 
 ought to be everywhere, forbidden by statute to trespass 
 upon a railway's line. It is the general rule that tres- 
 passers upon a railway line are entitled to recover for 
 nothing less than wilful injury; 1 thus, in L. S. N. & C. R. 
 
 1 Wright v. B. & M. R. R., 129 Mass. 440, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 121 ; L. 
 S. N. & C. Co. v. Norton, 24 Penna. St. 465 ; Mulherrin v. D., L. & W. R. R., 
 81 Id. 366 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Spearen, 47 Id. 300; Moore v. P. R. R., 99 Id. 
 301 ; Cauley v. P., C. & St. L. Ry., 95 Id. 398 ; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Collins, 
 87 Id. 405 ; Clarke v. P. & R. R. R., 5 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 119 ; 
 P. & R. R. R. v. Hummell, 44 Penna. St. 375 ; Lary v. O, C, C. & I. R. R., 
 78 Ind. 323, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 498 ; Harlan v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 
 64 Mo. 480; I. C. R. R. v. Godfrey, 71 111. 501 ; C. R. R. v. Brinson, 70 Ga. 
 207, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 42 ; Baston v. G. R. R.. 60 Ga. 340 ; S. W. R. R. 
 v. Johnson, Id. 667 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Howard, Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 98 ; I. C. R. R. v. Hall, 72 111. 222 ; Pzolla v. M. C. R. R., 54 Mich. 
 273, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 334 ; Campau v. , 35 Mich. 468 ; 
 
 Bresnahan v. M. C. Ry., 49 Mich. 410, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 147 ; Mason 
 v. M. P. Ry., 27 Kans. 83, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1 ; Tennenbrook v. S. P. 
 C. R. R., 59 Cal. 269, 6 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 8 ; Yarnall v. St. L., K. C. &
 
 TRESPASSERS ON THE LINE. 191 
 
 R. v. Norton, 1 the defendant company was the lessee of a 
 branch line connecting with the main line of the P. & 
 R. Co. at Port Clinton. The plaintiff, an employe of 
 the P. & R. Co., was working with a portable steam 
 engine and circular saw which he had placed upon the 
 defendant's line, and he was injured by a train on the 
 defendant's line running into him. Judgment upon a 
 verdict for the plaintiff was reversed in error upon the 
 ground that the defendant was entitled to the exclusive 
 occupancy of its line, and that it owed no duty to the 
 plaintiff; so in Carter v. C. & G. R. R., 2 the railway 
 was held not to be liable to a trespasser on its line, who 
 had been injured by the explosion of a torpedo which 
 a railway servant had placed on the rails and with which 
 the trespasser had intermeddled ; so in P. & R. R. R. v. 
 Hummell, 3 the plaintiff, seven years of age, brought 
 suit to recover for injuries received while running 
 beside a car upon the defendant's line, and falling 
 under the wheels of the car. Judgment upon a ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff was reversed in error for want of 
 proof of defendant's negligence, Strong, J., saying, 
 railway companies " have a right to presume and act 
 on the presumption that those in the vicinity will not 
 violate the laws ; will not trespass upon the road of a 
 
 N. R. R., 75 Mo. 575, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 726 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Depew, 
 40 Ohio St. 121, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 64 ; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Richards, 59 
 Tex. 373, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 70; T. H. & I. R. R. v. Graham, 95 Ind. 
 236, 12 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas 77 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Watkins, Ky. , 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 89 ; Bacon v. B. & P. R. R., 53 Md. 482, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 409; N. & C. R. R. v. Smith, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 470, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 469 ; Morris v. C, B. & Q. Ry., 45 Iowa 29 ; I. C. R. R. v. 
 Hall, 72 111. 222 ; McAllister v. B. & N. W. Ry., 64 Iowa 395, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 103 ; Schittenhelm v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. Ill ; Schemer v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 Minn. 510, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 173. 
 
 1 24 Penna. St. 465. 
 
 * 19 Shand (S. C ) 20, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 414. 
 
 • 44 Penna. St. 375.
 
 192 TRESPASSERS ON THE LINE. 
 
 clear track ; that even children of a tender age will not 
 be there, for though they are personally irresponsible, 
 they cannot be upon the railroad without a culpable 
 violation of duty by their parents or guardians ;" so in 
 Mason v. M. P. Ry., 1 the railway was held not to be 
 liable for the injuries of a woman who was run over 
 while walking ou a railway bridge. A fortiori, those 
 are deemed to be trespassers, and as such disentitled to 
 recover damages from the railway, whose injuries are 
 the result of their culpable carelessness in going to sleep 
 on a railway line, or in lying down on the line when 
 intoxicated. 2 Nor will it relieve a trespasser on the 
 line from liability for contributory negligence if he is 
 injured on a highway crossing, to which he has come, 
 not from the highway, but from the line; 3 nor, if having 
 been walking on the line, and having left it to escape a 
 moving train, he does not place himself at a sufficient 
 distance from the train, and is struck by a projecting 
 plank. 4 
 
 200. Regulations requiring the sounding of signals 
 before approaching crossings or curves on the line are 
 intended for the protection of travellers, and an engine- 
 driver's disobedience of such a rule is not evidence of 
 negligence when a trespasser on the line is injured. 5 
 
 201. Engine-drivers are entitled to assume that tres- 
 passers upon the line, who are apparently of average 
 
 1 27 Kans. 83, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1. 
 
 2 Richardson v. W. & M. R. R., 8 Rich. L. 120; Felder v. L. C. & C. R. R., 
 2 Macmullan 403 ; Herring v. W. & R. R. R., 10 Ired. 402 ; Manly v. W. & W. 
 R. R., 74 N. C. 655 ; I. C. R. R. v. Hutchinson, 47 111. 408 ; Meeks v. S. P. R. 
 R., 52 Cal. 604 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Greene, Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 95 ; Fleytas v. P. R. R., 18 La. An. (O. S.) 339. 
 
 s Grethen v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. (U. S. C. C District of Minnesota), 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 342. 
 
 * C. R. R. v. Brinson, 70 Ga. 207, 19 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 42. 
 
 5 L. & N. R. R. v. Howard, Ky. ,19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 98 ; Tennen- 
 brook v. S. P. C. R. R., 59 Cal. 259, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 8 ; Of. Ditberner 
 v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 47 Wise. 138.
 
 INFANT TRESPASSERS. 193 
 
 bodily and mental capacity, will get out of the way of 
 the train ; l but, where the railway servants in charge 
 of the train see on the line a trespasser, whom they 
 know to be incapacitated by deafness from hearing the 
 train or its signals, it is their duty to stop the train ; 
 and the railway will be liable if they do not make every 
 effort to do so ; 2 so also, where they see a trespasser who 
 is prevented from escaping by his foot being caught 
 between the guard and main rail at a switch f so also, 
 where they see a team stalled upon the line. 4 
 
 202. The railway, under some circumstances, may 
 owe to an infant a higher measure of duty than that 
 which it owes to an adult; thus, if an engine-driver 
 were to see a child upon the line it would be his duty 
 to give warning by signal and make every effort to 
 stop the train, for it is a reasonable supposition that 
 the child might not sufficiently realize its danger, or, if 
 it did, might not accurately appreciate the necessity of 
 moving promptly off the line ; 5 thus, in P. & It. R. R, 
 v. Spearen, 6 the plaintiff, a girl of five years of age, was 
 injured in attempting to run across the defendant's line, 
 not at a public crossing, and between a coal train and 
 an engine following closely after the train. Judgment 
 upon a verdict for the plaintiff was reversed in error 
 
 1 P. & R. R. R. v. Spearen, 47 Penna. St. 300 ; Sims v. M. & W. R. R., 28 
 Ga. 93 ; Schittenhelm v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. Ill ; 
 Moore v. P., W. & B. R. R., 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 53; Herring 
 v. W. & R. R. R., 10 Iredell 402 ; Cell v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 50, 4 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas 580 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Cooper, Ky. , 6 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 5 ; T. II. & I. R. R. v. Graham, 95 Ind. 28G, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 77. 
 
 2 I. & G. N. Ry. v. Smith, 62 Tex. 252, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 21. 
 
 •' Burnett v. B. & M. R. R., 16 Neb. 332, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 25. 
 * C. & A. R. R. v. Hogarth, 38 111. 370. 
 
 5 P. & R. R. R. v. Spearen, 47 Penna. St. 300 ; Smith v. O'Connor, 48 Id. 
 218 ; Schwier v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 90 N. Y. 558, 14 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 656 ; cf. Bannon v. B. & O. R. R., 24 Md. 108. 
 
 6 47 Penna. St. 300. 
 
 13
 
 194 INFANT TRESPASSERS. 
 
 for want of proof of defendant's negligence, Agnew, J., 
 saying: " The degree of care required of the servants 
 of the company in such a case is dependent, in some 
 measure, upon the capacity of the injured party. If an 
 adult should place himself upon the railroad where he 
 has no right to be, but where the company is entitled 
 to a clear track, and the benefit of the presumption 
 that it will not be obstructed, and should be run down, 
 the company will be liable for wilful injury, or its 
 counterpart, gross negligence. But if a child of tender 
 years should do so, and suffer injury, the company 
 would be liable for the want of ordinary care. The 
 principle may be illustrated thus. If the engineer saw 
 the adult in time to stop his train, but the train being 
 in full view, and nothing to indicate to him a want of 
 consciousness of its approach, he would not be bound to 
 stop his train. Having the right to a clear track, he 
 would be entitled to the presumption that the trespasser 
 would remove from it in time to avoid the danger ; or, 
 if he thought the person did not notice the approaching 
 train, it would be sufficient to whistle to attract his 
 attention without stopping. But if, instead of the adult, 
 it were a little child upon the track, it would be the 
 duty of the engineer to stop his train upon seeing it. 
 The change of circumstances from the possession of 
 capacity in the trespasser to avoid the danger to a want 
 of it, would create a corresponding change in the duty 
 in the engineer. In the former case, the adult, con- 
 curring in the negligence causing the disaster, is with- 
 out remedy ; in the latter, the child not concurring from 
 a want of capacity, the want of ordinary care in the 
 engineer would create liability. But if the train were 
 upon the child before it could be seen, or if it suddenly 
 and unexpectedly threw itself in the way of the engine, 
 the engineer being incapable of exercising the measure
 
 INFANT TRESPASSERS. 195 
 
 of ordinary care to save it, the child would be without 
 remedy, for the company's use of the track is lawful, 
 and the presence of the child upon the track is un- 
 lawful." 
 
 203. Yet there is no inexorable rule of law which re- 
 quires a train to be stopped whenever a child is seen upon 
 the line j 1 or a street car ; 2 thus, in P. R. R. v. Morgan, 3 
 the plaintiff, a girl of five years of age, was playing on the 
 defendant's line in the outskirts of a town, when a 
 repair train, with a caboose car in the front, backed 
 slowly down, two of the train hands being on the look- 
 out at the front of the caboose car. The plaintiff, see- 
 ing the train, started to run off the track, but caught 
 her foot between the rail and a space left for the flange 
 of the wheel. The train hands, seeing her caught, 
 promptly applied the brakes and signalled to the 
 engine-driver, who reversed the engine, but although 
 every possible exertion was used it was impossible to 
 stop the train until the front car had run past her. 
 The front wheel of the caboose, sliding under the pres- 
 sure of the brake, pushed the plaintiff's foot out of her 
 shoe and lacerated her foot, producing a permanent 
 injury. Judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff was 
 reversed in error, because the judge, at the trial, in- 
 structed the jury that the train hands, having seen the 
 girl upon the track, were bound to stop, because they 
 had no right to assume that a child knows its danger, 
 or had the capacity to apprehend it, whereas, it should 
 have been left to the jury to find, whether, under all the 
 circumstances, the defendant was negligent, there being 
 no inexorable rule that a train must stop, under all cir- 
 
 1 Singleton v. E. C. Ry., 7 C. B. N. S. 287, 97 E. C. L.; P. R. R. v. Morgan,! 
 82 Penna. St. 135 ; Meyer v. M. P. R. R., 2 Neb. 319. 
 
 2 P. C. P. Ry. v. Henrice, 92 Penna. St. 431, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 544 ; 
 Walters v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 41 Iowa 71. 
 
 » 82 Penna. St. 135.
 
 196 TRESPASSERS SLEEPING ON THE LINE. 
 
 cumstances, when a child is seen upon the track. Nor 
 can an infant, who is a trespasser on the line, recover 
 for anything less than wilful injury, or a carelessness 
 upon the part of the railway servants, so great as not to 
 be distinguishable from wilful injury, where the circum- 
 stances are not such as to bring the fact of the child's 
 infancy and consequent want of capacity to the notice 
 of the servants of the railway. 1 
 
 204. In some jurisdictions it is held that a trespasser 
 upon the line can recover, if the injury might have been 
 avoided by the use of ordinary care and caution upon 
 the part of the railway. 2 So it has been held that where 
 trespassers on the line were run over while asleep, or 
 insensible from intoxication, the railway was liable, if 
 its servants in charge of the train could, by the exercise 
 of ordinary care, have discovered the presence of the 
 injured persons and avoided the injury and did not do 
 so. 3 The practical effect of those authorities seems to be 
 
 1 Singleton v. E. C. Ry., 7 C. B. N. S. 287, 97 E. C. L. ; P. & R. R. R. v. 
 Hummell, 44 Penna. St. 375 ; Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Id. 210 ; Clark v. P. R. R., 
 5 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 119 ; H. M. & F. P. Ry. v. Connell, 88 Penna. 
 St. 520; Duff v. A. V. R. R., 91 Id. 458; B. & O. R. R. v. Schwindling, 101 
 Id. 258 ; Moore v. P. R. R., 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 310 ; Hydraulic 
 Works Co! v Or, 83 Penna. St. 332, as explained in Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Id. 
 74, and substantially overruled in Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Id. 144 ; Cauley v. 
 P., S., C. & St. L. Ry., 95 Id. 398 ; Woodbridge v. D., L. & W. R. R., 105 Id. 
 460 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Greene, Ky. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 95 ; Mor- 
 risey v.B R. R., 126 Mass. 377; cf. P. R. R. v. Lewis, 79 Penna. St. 33; 
 Penna. Co. v. James, 81 j Id. 194 ; Frick v. St. L., K. C.& N. Ry., 75 Mo. 595, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 280 ; L. & N. A. & C. R. R. v. Head, 80 Ind. 117, 
 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 619 ; Isabel v. H. & St. J. R. R., 65 Mo. 475. . 
 
 2 E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Fain, 12 J. B. Lea (Tenn.), 35, 19 Am. & Eng R. 
 R. Cas. 102 ; Morris v. C. B. & Q. Ry., 45 Iowa 29 ; McAllister v. B. & N. W. 
 Ry., Iowa , 19 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 108 ; I. C. R. R. v. Modglin, 85 111. 
 481 ; Meeks v S. P. R. R., 56 Cal. 513, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 314; Brown 
 v. II. & St. J. R. R., 50 Mo. 461. 
 
 ' II. & T. C. Ry. v. Sympkins, 54 Tex. 615, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 11 ; 
 Meeks v. S P. R. R., 56 Cal. 513, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 314; E. T. V. & 
 d. B. R. v. Humphreys, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 200, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 472; 
 Keyser v. C. & G T. Ry., Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 91 ; E. T. & 
 G. R. R. v. St. John, 5Sneed (Tenn.) 524.
 
 LICENSE TO TRESPASS. 197 
 
 that the railway is to be held liable if its servants do 
 not, in running its trains, exercise vigilance in looking 
 for trespassers on the line, and care in avoiding injury 
 to them, but as the railway is entitled to the exclusive 
 possession and use of its line, it is not reasonable to re- 
 quire its servants to assume that trespassers will come 
 on the line, or that being on the line they will not heed 
 signals that warn them of their danger. Upon principle 
 the more reasonable doctrine would seem to be that 
 stated in the preceding paragraph, the result of which 
 is that engine-drivers are not bound to assume that 
 trespassers will be on the line, or to watch for them, and 
 that when they do see a trespasser on the line, ap- 
 parently of adult years and of average capacity, they 
 are bound to warn him by signal of his clanger, and 
 that having done so they may assume that he will get 
 off the line and that they are only bound to stop the 
 train when the circumstances of the locality are such 
 (for instance, on a bridge or in a narrow cutting) that 
 the trespasser does not have an opportunity to escape, 
 or when the trespasser does not apparently hear or heed 
 or comprehend the warning of his danger. 
 
 205. The mere fact that people have frequently tres- 
 passed upon a railway line, and that the railway has 
 not resorted to any means to protect its exclusive pos- 
 session of its line, will not imply the railway's consent 
 to such user, nor vest in the public any right thereto. 1 
 On the other hand, in Hoppe v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 2 
 in the case of a child who was killed while trespassing 
 on the line, evidence was admitted to show that the rail- 
 way line was generally used as a footway by the resi- 
 
 1 C. R. R. v. Brinson, 70 Ga. 207, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 42; I. C. R. R. 
 v. Godfrey, 71 111. 506 ; B. & R. R. v. The State of Maryland, to the use of 
 Allison, 62 Md. 479, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 83. 
 
 2 61 Wise. 357, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 74.
 
 108 FENCING AS AFFECTING TRESPASSERS. 
 
 dents of the neighborhood, and a recovery against the 
 railway was sustained. The same view was taken in 
 P. R. R. v. Lewis. 1 But, of course, a right of way 
 across a line may be gained by an adverse user just as 
 any other right of way may be acquired, and people 
 whom the railway has permitted to cross its line can- 
 not be treated as trespassers, for they are licensees. 
 
 206. In Hayes v. M. C. Py., 2 the railway was, by 
 reason of its failure to perform a statutory duty to fence 
 its line on the border of a public park, held liable for 
 the injuries of a boy of less than nine years of age, 
 who having strayed from the park was, while trespass- 
 ing on the line, run over by a train. 3 On the other 
 hand, in Fitzgerald v. St. P., M. & M. Py., 4 it was held, 
 Gilfillan, C J., dissenting, that a failure on the part of 
 the railway to fence its line in obedience to a statute, 
 whose declared purpose was the prevention of injury to 
 cattle, could not be imputed to the railway as negligence 
 in the case of a child who had strayed upon the line and 
 been injured. 
 
 1 79 Penna. St. 33. 
 
 2 111 U. S. 228, 15 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 394. 
 
 3 See also, Keyser v. C. & G. T. Ry., Mich. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 91 ; Hynes v. S. F. & N. P. R. R., Cal. , 20 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 486: 
 Schmidt v. M. & St. P. Ry., 23 Wise. 186. 
 
 4 29 Minn. 336, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 310.
 
 LIABILITY TO PASSENGERS, ETC. 199 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED 
 IN THE FOURTH CATEGORY, PASSENGERS, ETC. 
 
 I. The general principle determining the liability. 
 II. Passengers. 
 
 III. Persons to whom the railway owes the same measure of duty that it 
 
 owes to its passengers. 
 
 IV. The Pennsylvania Act of 4 April, 1868. 
 
 V. The general duty of the railway to its passengers and to those to 
 
 whom it owes a like duty. 
 VI. The duty as to the adoption of improved appliances and methods of 
 
 operation. 
 VII. Railway regulations as affecting passengers. 
 VIII. Station approaches, platforms, and buildings. 
 IX. Boarding and descending from cars. 
 
 X. The duty of the railway in the operation of its line. 
 XI. Contributory negligence of passengers. 
 
 I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE DETERMINING THE LIA- 
 BILITY OF THE RAILWAY. 
 
 207. The fourth category includes persons who, in the 
 course of the performance of a contract based upon a valu- 
 able consideration, come upon the line, premises, or cars 
 of the railway, including herein passengers of the railway ; 
 attendants of passengers ; passengers of another railway re- 
 ceived for transportation in the railway's cars; passengers 
 of another railway whose cars are run over the line of the 
 railway; passengers of another railway with whom a sta- 
 tion is jointly occupied ; servants of another railway while 
 upon the line or premises of the railway in the perform- 
 ance of their duty to that other railway; consignors, con- 
 signees, and their agents, personally assisting in the re- 
 ception, carriage, or delivery of their freight; persons 
 entering under special contract upon the railway's line
 
 200 GENERAL RULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 or premises ; Post Office employes carried under a con- 
 tract between the railway and the Post Office Depart- 
 ment, or under a statutory duty imposed upon the 
 railway ; persons carried under contract between the 
 railway and a third party; servants of express companies 
 whose cars are run, or whose goods are carried, over 
 the line ; and persons who are carried on the line to 
 sell refreshments, newspapers, etc., to the passengers. 
 All the individuals included in the several classes of 
 this category are entitled to demand of the railway a 
 like measure of duty. 
 
 The railway is liable for negligence to persons who come upon its line, 
 premises, or cars, in the course of the performance of a contract 
 based upon a valuable consideration. 
 
 208. Where a person, in the course of the perform- 
 ance of a contract made by the railway upon a valuable 
 consideration, comes upon the line, station, station ap- 
 proaches and surroundings, or other premises of a 
 railway, there is an implied warranty upon the part of 
 the railway to him that its line, station, station ap- 
 proaches and surroundings, or other premises, are safe, 
 in so far as care on the part of the railway can make 
 them safe, and that he shall not be injured by negli- 
 gence upon the part of the railway in the conduct of 
 its business. 1 The leading case is Parnaby v. Lancaster 
 
 1 Parnaby v. L. Canal Co., 11 Ad. & El. 223, 39 E. C. L. ; Mersey Docks Co. 
 v. Gibbs, 3 H. & N. 164, 11 H. L. C. 686, L. R. 1 II. L. 93 ; Marfell v. S. W. 
 Ry., 8 C. B. N. 8. 525, 98 E. C. L. ; Winch v. Conservators of the Thames, L. 
 R. 9 C P. 378 ; Ilartnall v. Ryde Commrs., 4 B. & S. 361, 116 E. C L. ; Ohrby 
 v. Ryde Commrs., 5 B. & S. 743, 117 E. C. L. ; Corby v. Hill, 4 C B. N. S. 556, 
 93 E. C. L. ; Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B. N. S. 470, 100 E. C. L. ; Chapman v. 
 Rothwell, E. Bl. & E. 168, 96 E. C. L. ; Thompson v. N. E. Ry., 2 B. & S. 106, 
 110 E. C. L. ; Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274, 2 Id. 311 ; Smitli v. L. 
 & St. K. Docks Co., L. R. 3 Id. 326; White v. France, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 308; 
 Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q B. 184, 501 ; Lax v. Corporation of Darlington, 
 5 Ex. Div. 28; Briggs v. Oliver, 4 II. & C. 40S ; Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q. 
 B. D. 502 ; Godley v. Haggerty, 20 Penna. St. 387 ; Carson v. Godley, 26 Id.
 
 GENERAL RULE OF LIABILITY. 201 
 
 Canal Co., 1 where it was held in the Court of Exchequer 
 Chamber that a canal company, taking tolls for the 
 navigation, were bound to use reasonable care in mak- 
 ing the navigation secure, and were liable in damages 
 to the plaintiff, whose boat in navigating the canal had 
 been injured by collision with a sunken boat which the 
 canal company had neglected to remove, and Tindal, 
 C. J., 2 thus stated the principle upon which was rested 
 the liability of the defendant : " the company made the 
 canal for their, profit, and opened it to the public upon 
 payment of tolls to the company ; and the common law, 
 in such a case, imposes a duty upon the proprietors, not 
 perhaps to repair the canal, or absolutely to free it from 
 obstructions, but to take reasonable care, so long as they 
 keep it open for the public use of all who may choose 
 to navigate it, that they may navigate it without danger 
 to their lives or property." The ground of liability 
 thus clearly stated was approved in the judgments de- 
 livered in the House of Lords in the later case of The 
 Mersey Docks, Trustees v. Gibbs. 3 So in Francis v. 
 Cockrell, 4 where the defendant, being one of the stew- 
 ards of a race, had employed a competent contractor to 
 erect a stand from which the race could be viewed, and 
 the plaintiff, having paid a pecuniary consideration for 
 admission, was injured by the fall of the stand resulting 
 from negligence on the part of the contractor in building 
 it, it was held that the defendant was liable in damages 
 to the plaintiff, Kelly, C. B., saying : " that one who 
 lets for hire, or engages for the supply of, any article 
 or thing, whether it be a carriage to be ridden in, or a 
 
 111; Walden v. Finch, 70 Id. 460; McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Id. 218; N. O. 
 M. & C It. R. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649; Bennett v. L. & N. R. R., 102 U. S. 
 577, 1 Am. &. Eng. R. R. Cas. 71 ; Carleton v. F. I. Co., 99 Mass. 216; L. & 
 B. R R. v. Chenewith, 52 Penna. St. 382 ; Fries v. Cameron, 4 Richardson 228. 
 
 1 11 Ad. & El. 223, 39 E. C. L. 2 P. 242. 
 
 8 L. R. 1 II. L. 93. * L. R. 5 Q. B. 501.
 
 20l2 GENERAL KULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 bridge to be passed over, or a stand from which to view 
 a steeple chase, or a place to be sat in by anybody who 
 is to witness a spectacle, for a pecuniary consideration, 
 does warrant and does impliedly contract that the article 
 is reasonably fit for the purpose to which it is to be ap- 
 plied ; but, secondly, he does not contract against any un- 
 seen, or unknown, defect which could not be discovered^ 
 or which may be said to be undiscoverable by any or- 
 dinary or reasonable means of inquiry or examination." 
 So in Heaven v. Pender, 1 where the defendant, a dock 
 owner, supplied, under contract with a ship owner, a 
 staging for use by the servants of a painter who had 
 contracted with the ship owner to paint the ship, and 
 the plaintiff, who was one of the painter's servants, was 
 injured by reason of the fall of the staging resulting 
 from negligence upon the part of the dock owner in 
 failing to provide sound tackle, it was held in the Court 
 of Appeal, reversing the Queen's Bench Division, that 
 the defendant was liable. Brett, M. R., 2 putting the 
 liability in general terms says : " that whenever one 
 person is, by circumstances, placed in such, a position 
 with regard to another, that every one of ordinary sense 
 who did think would at once recognize that if he did 
 not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with 
 regard to those circumstances lie would cause danger 
 of injury to the person or the property of the other, a 
 duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such 
 danger." Cotton and Bowen, L. J J., however, while 
 holding the defendant liable did not concur in the gen- 
 erality of the principle as stated by the Master of the 
 Rolls. So in Elliott v. Hall, 3 a colliery owner and con- 
 signor of coals was held liable to the servant of his 
 consignee for injuries received in unloading coals from 
 
 1 11 Q. B. D. 503 « P. 509 8 15 Q. B. D. 315.
 
 GENERAL RULE OF LIABILITY. 203 
 
 a truck, which had been hired by the consignor from a 
 third party for use in the transportation and delivery 
 of coals to the consignee, and which, when out of repair 
 by the negligence of the consignor's servants, had been 
 sent to the consignee. Grove, J., said : " if vendors of 
 goods forward them to the purchasers, and for that pur- 
 pose supply a truck, or other means of conveyance for 
 the carriage of the goods, and the goods are necessarily 
 to be unloaded from such means of conveyance by the 
 purchaser's servants, it seems to me perfectly clear that 
 there is a duty on the part of the vendors towards those 
 persons who, necessarily, will have to unload, or other- 
 wise deal with the goods, to see that the truck, or other 
 means of conveyance, is in good condition and repair, 
 so as not to be dangerous to such persons. I do not say 
 that the vendors would be responsible for latent defects, 
 or matters that they could not reasonably foresee, but 
 they are, in my opinion, bound to see that the machinery 
 of the truck is apparently in good order." 
 
 209. The result of the authorities, therefore, is thai 
 wherever one party enters into relations with another 
 party upon the basis of a contract made upon a valu- 
 able, though not necessarily a pecuniary, consideration, 
 and those relations bring one of the parties into contact 
 with a material agency which the contract requires the 
 other party to supply, the law then exacts of him who 
 supplies that material agency the duty of exercising 
 care in its selection, maintenance in repair, and opera- 
 tion ; and this duty must be so performed as to protect 
 not only the contracting party, but also those agents, 
 servants, and assistants, whom the nature of the relation 
 between the contracting parties justifies him in employ- 
 ing. Such is the general principle upon which rests 
 the liability of railways to the persons included in the 
 fourth category. It must, however, be borne in mind,
 
 204 PASSENGERS DEFINED. 
 
 in this connection, that if there be an express contract 
 between the railway and any one of the persons in- 
 cluded in the fourth category, and if that contract be 
 enforceable in law, its terms must, so far as they extend, 
 determine the liability, but, if there be no such enforce- 
 able contract, the liability of the railway rests solely 
 upon the duty imposed by law. 
 
 II. PASSENGERS. 
 
 The relation of passenger and carrier is dependent upon the existence 
 of a contract of carriage. 
 
 210. A passenger may be defined to be a person whom 
 a railway, in the performance of its duty as a common 
 carrier, has contracted to carry from one place to another 
 place for a valuable consideration, and whom the rail- 
 way, in the course of the performance of that contract, 
 has received at its station, or in its car, or under its care. 
 A substantially similar definition is given by Paxson, J., 
 in Price v. P. K. R 1 
 
 211. The terms of the definition show that the rela- 
 tion of carrier and passenger is dependent upon the 
 existence of a contract of carriage made upon a valu- 
 able consideration between the passenger and the rail- 
 way acting in the exercise of its charter powers, but to 
 constitute one a paying passenger, the payment of fare 
 in money is not essential, 2 for any valuable considera- 
 tion moving from the person injured to the railway will 
 render him a paying passenger, such as the fact that 
 he was travelling as a drover in charge of his cattle, 
 which the railway was transporting for hire; 3 or that 
 
 1 96 Penna. St. 267. 
 
 2 Cleveland v. N. J. S. Co., 68 N. Y. 306; Hart v. S. E. R, 40 Miss. 391. 
 
 s N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 ; I. & St. L. R. R. v. Horst, 93 
 U. S. 291 ; C. P. & A. R. R. v. Currun, 19 Ohio St. 1 ; O. & M. Ry. v. Selby,
 
 FAKE NOT PAID IN MONEY. 205 
 
 he, as the owner of a patented coupler, was travelling on 
 the defendant's line at its invitation in the course of 
 negotiations for the adoption of his patent; 1 or that he 
 was a detective carried over the line on a hand-car in 
 the performance of a special duty, for which the rail- 
 way had entered into a contract with him ; 2 or that he 
 was with the consent of the railway travelling on a 
 freight train in charge of stock or goods carried by the 
 railway for him. 3 
 
 212. So where the railway has contracted to carry 
 an individual whose fare is paid, or is agreed to be paid, 
 by the person with whom the contract is made, the rail- 
 way is liable to the individual, who is so received for 
 carriage, to the same extent as if he had personally paid 
 fare before coming upon the railway's premises or enter- 
 ing its cars ; thus, in Austin v. G. W. Ry., 4 the defend- 
 ant's charter requiring it to carry gratuitously upon 
 certain trains children under three years of asre, and to 
 charge half fare for children between three and twelve 
 years of age, and the plaintiff, a child of more than 
 three years of age, having been without fraudulent in- 
 tent taken by its mother, who had purchased a ticket 
 only for herself, upon the defendant's train, and having 
 been injured by the defendant's negligence, after verdict 
 for the plaintiff, a rule for a new trial was refused, it 
 being held that the plaintiff could recover upon the 
 
 47 Ind. 471 ; Mastin v. B. & O. E. E., 14 W.Va. 180; L. K. & F. S. Ey. v. 
 Miles, 40 Ark. 298; P. E. E. v. Henderson, 51 Penna. St. 315; Goldey v. P. 
 E. E., 30 Id. 242 ; O. & M. Ey. v. Nicklesa, 71 Ind. 271 ; Flinn v. P., W. & B. 
 E. E., 1 Houst. (Del.) 469; T. & P. Ey. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. E. E. Cas. 384. 
 
 1 G. T. Ey. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655. 
 
 2 Pool v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 53 Wise. 657, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 332, 56 
 Wise. 227, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 360. 
 
 3 I. E. E. v. Beaver, 41 Ind. 493 ; Lawson v. C, St. P., M. & O. E. E., 64 
 Wise. 447, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 249. 
 
 * L. E. 2 Q. B. 442.
 
 206 FARE PAID BY OTHERS. 
 
 duty of the railway to carry safely every one whom it 
 had received for carriage, and also upon the ground of 
 a contract by the defendant with the mother to carry 
 her and the plaintiff safely, and that the non-payment 
 of fare by the mother for her child, while rendering 
 the mother liable to the defendant for that fare, could 
 not be held to bar the plaintiff's recovery. So in G. N. 
 R. R. v. Harrison, 1 the issue being whether the plain- 
 tiff when injured was lawfully in the defendant's car- 
 riage, it was held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to the verdict on that 
 issue, having proven that he, being a reporter of a 
 newspaper, had travelled bona fide upon a ticket issued 
 at a reduced rate to the proprietor of the paper for his 
 reporters, and supplied by him to the plaintiff, though 
 the ticket bore the name of another reporter of that 
 paper and was marked " not transferable," it also being 
 shown that the defendant's porter had examined the 
 ticket and had placed the reporter in a carriage, and 
 also that the defendant's servants had on other occa- 
 sions permitted reporters of that paper to use indiffer- 
 ently the several tickets issued for that paper. Upon 
 the same principle the railway, in Marshall v. Y. N. & 
 B. Ry., 2 was held liable to the valet of a nobleman for 
 the loss of his personal luggage, although the master 
 had taken and paid for the servant's ticket. So in 
 Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 3 the defendant had con- 
 tracted with a benevolent society to run a train from 
 London to Brighton and return for a gross sum to be 
 paid by the society. The plaintiff, a passenger on the 
 train, having purchased his ticket from the society, was 
 injured in a collision caused by the defendant's negli- 
 gence. At the trial the defendant objected that there 
 
 1 10 Ex. 376. * 11 C. B. 655, 73 E. C. L. s 5 Ex. 787.
 
 FREE PASSENGERS. 207 
 
 was no evidence that the plaintiff was a passenger to be 
 carried by the defendant for hire, but, after verdict for 
 the plaintiff, it was held that the defendant's duty to 
 carry safely any person lawfully in its carriages would 
 support the action. 1 
 
 213. So where a contract of carriage has been in fact 
 made between the railway and the passenger, and the 
 railway has agreed to transport the passenger gratui- 
 tously, it is liable to him to the same extent as if he had 
 paid his fare before coming upon the railway's premises 
 or entering its cars. The existence of the contract of 
 carriage, as a fact, fixes the liability of the railway, and 
 the law finds an adequate consideration for such a con- 
 tract, in the doctrine that " the confidence induced by 
 undertaking any service for another is a sufficient legal 
 consideration to create a duty in the performance of it." 2 
 The railway is, therefore, liable to persons whom it ac- 
 cepts for transportation over its line, and from whom it 
 demands no fare, to the same extent that it is liable to 
 passengers who pay fare. Thus, in P. & R. It. R. v. 
 Derby, 3 the plaintiff, a president of another line, and 
 a shareholder of the corporation defendant, having 
 been injured while being carried over the defendant's 
 line at the invitation of its president, judgment upon a 
 verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed in error, Grier, J., 
 saying, the duty of the defendant to carry carefully 
 " does not result alone from the consideration paid for 
 the service. It is imposed by the law, even where the 
 service is gratuitous." 4 
 
 1 See also O. & M. R. R. v. Muhling, 30 111. 9 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Messino, 1 
 Sneed (Tenn.) 220 ; Hurt v. S. R. R., 40 Miss. 391. 
 
 2 Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Sm. L. C. 293. 
 8 14 Howard 468. 
 
 * See also Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. 469 ; P. R. R. v. Butler, 
 57 Penna. St. 335; B., P. & W. R. R. v. O'Hara, 12 Weekly Notes of Cases 
 (Penna.) 473; Todd v. O. C. R. R., 3 Allen 18,7 Id. 207 • Jacobus v. St. P. & C.
 
 208 TRESPASSERS ON CARS. 
 
 214. It lias been stated in section 211, that the exist- 
 ence of the relation of carrier and passenger is dependent 
 upon the making of a contract of carriage. From this, 
 it follows that railways are not liable to persons who 
 have not been accepted as passengers, and the intention 
 of the person to pay his fare and his good faith are im- 
 material, when there has been no contract, express or 
 implied, on the part of the railway. 1 A fortiori, where 
 the person injured is a trespasser on the cars, the rail- 
 way owes him no duty, and is not bound to indemnify 
 him for anything less than injuries wilfully inflicted. 2 
 Thus, in Duff v. A. V. R. R., 3 a mother sued to recover 
 for the death of her son, a newsboy, whom the defend- 
 ant's train hands permitted to travel for the purpose of ■ 
 selling newspapers, and judgment on a verdict for the 
 defendant was affirmed in error, upon the ground that 
 the plaintiff's son was a trespasser and not a passenger. 
 So, where the person injured travels on a non-transfer- 
 able free pass, which was issued to another person, and 
 represents himself to be that person, he can recover for 
 
 Ry., 20 Minn. 125; Rose v. D. M. V. R. R., 39 Iowa 246 ; F. & P. M. Ry. v. 
 Weir, 37 Mich. Ill ; Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. 340 ; O. & M. Ry. v. Selby, 47 
 Ind. 471 ; Waterbury v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 17 Fed. Rep. 671 ; Abell v. 
 W. M. R. R., 63 Md. 433, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Gas. 503 ; Gillenwater v. M. 
 & I. R. R., 5 Ind. 339 ; O. & M. Ry. v. Nickless, 71 Ind. 271 ; Prince v. I. & 
 G. N. R. R. 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 152. 
 
 1 Gardner v. N. H. & N. Co., 51 Conn. 143, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 170. 
 
 * T., W. & W. Ry. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245, 292 ; C. & B. R. R. v. Michie, 83 
 Id. 427 ; Brown v. M. K. & T. R. R., 64 Mo. 536 ; T., W. & W. Ry. v. Beggs, 
 85 111. 80 ; Duff i'. A. V. R. R., 91 Penna. St. 458. 
 
 3 91 Penna. St. 458. 
 
 In some of the cases, as, for instance, in B., P. & W. R. R. v. O'Hara, 12 
 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 473, it is held that a railway cannot, by con- 
 tract with a passenger whom it carries gratuitously, exempt itself from liabil- 
 ity for the results of its negligence ; but the contrary doctrine is asserted in 
 other cases, for instance, in Kinney v. C. R. R. of N. J., 34 N. J. L. 513. 
 The subject of the railway's right to limit its liability to passengers, whether 
 carried for full fare, or gratuitously, is considered in the last chapter of this 
 work.
 
 AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE PASSENGERS. 209 
 
 nothing less than wilful injury. 1 Nor can one recover, 
 who, with intent to defraud the railway, induces the 
 railway servants to carry him without payment of fare. 2 
 The same principle was applied in the case of B. & B. 
 Ry. v. Keys, 3 where the plaintiff, knowing that while 
 the defendant carried luggage free, it yet required mer- 
 chandise to be paid for, took with him in defendant's 
 carriage a case of merchandise as luggage, and did not 
 declare nor pay for it, and it was held that he could not 
 recover for its loss ; because, by reason of his fraudulent 
 concealment, there was no express or implied contract 
 between the defendants and himself with respect to that 
 merchandise. 
 
 215. Where the person injured has been permitted by 
 the defendant's servants to ride upon the railway with- 
 out paying fare, the railway is liable if the servant was 
 expressly or impliedly authorized to bind the railway 
 by such permission; 1 but where the regulations of the 
 railway deny to the servant the authority of accepting 
 passengers, the railway is not liable. 5 Conductors in 
 charge of passenger trains have an implied authority to 
 accept persons as passengers thereon, 6 but as freight 
 trains are run by railways for the transportation of 
 freight, not passengers, the servants of the railway when 
 
 1 T., W. & W. Ry. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80. 
 
 1 T., W. & W. Ry. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245, Id. 292. 
 
 3 9 H. L. C. 555. 
 
 * Sherman v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589; 
 Wilton v. M. R. R., 107 Mass. 108 ; Same v. Same, 125 Mass. 130 ; P., A. & M 
 P. Ry. v. Caldwell, 74 Penna. St. 421 ; Gradin v. St. P. & D. Ry., 30 Minn. 
 217, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. (as. 644; Secor v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 
 221 ; Lucas v. M. & St. P. Ry., 33 Wise. 41 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Penna. 
 St. 139. 
 
 5 T., W. & W. Ry. r. Brooks, 81 111. 245; C. & B. R. R. v. Miehie, 83 Id. 
 427; Dufft). A. V. R. R., 91 Penna. St. 458; Jenkins v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 
 41 Wise. 112 ; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31 ; Gardner v. N. H. & N. 
 Co., 51 Conn. 143, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 170. 
 
 6 P. R. R. v. Books, 57 Penna. St 345 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Id. 139. 
 
 14
 
 210 SERVANTS AS PASSENGERS. 
 
 in charge of such trains have no implied authority to 
 invite strangers to become passengers thereon, and in 
 the absence of proof of express authority vested in the 
 conductor of a freight train the acceptance of his invi- 
 tation to ride thereon does not make a stranger a pas- 
 senger j 1 nor have railway servants an implied authority 
 to accept persons as passengers on pay cars, 2 or on hand 
 cars, 3 but if it be proven that the railway servant was 
 authorized to accept the person as a passenger on a hand 
 car, 4 or on a freight train, 5 the railway will, by reason 
 of such acceptance, be liable to him as a passenger. 
 
 216. Where an individual is carried by a railway in 
 performance of the conditions of a contract of service he 
 is to be regarded as a servant, not as a passenger, thus, 
 in Tunney v. The Midland Ry., 6 the plaintiff was a 
 laborer employed to load a pick-up train, and the de- 
 fendant had contracted to carry him to and from his 
 work by train. While returning after his day's Avork 
 was done he was injured through the negligence of one 
 of the guards, and it was held that he could not recover, 
 for he was carried, not as a passenger, but under a con- 
 tract of service, and the cause of the injury was the 
 negligence of a fellow-servant; Willes, J., saying: 
 "there is always a strong inclination to find some mode 
 to give the plaintiff redress in cases of this sort, but one 
 man's misfortune must not be compensated for at another 
 
 1 Eaton v D., L. & W. R. R., 57 N. Y. 382 ; Waterbury v. N. Y. C. & H. R 
 R. R., 17 Fed. Rep. 671 ; cf. Dunn v. G. T. Ry., 58 Me. 187. 
 
 * S. W. R. R. v. Singleton, 66 Ga. 252. 
 3 Hoar v. M. C. Ry., 70 Me. 65. 
 
 * Pool v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 56 Wise. 227, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 360; 
 Prince v. I. & G. N. R. R., 64 Tex. 144, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 152. 
 
 5 Dunn v. G. T. Ry., 58 Me. 187; Lucas v. M. & St. P. Ry., 33 Wise. 41 ; 
 Secord v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 221 ; Sherman v. H. & St. J. R. 
 R., 72 Mo. 621, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 580 ; O. & M. R. R. v. Mahling, 30 
 111. 9; T. & P. Ry. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 384. 
 
 6 l! R. 1 C. P. 291.
 
 SERVANTS AS PASSENGERS. 211 
 
 man's expense." So also in Ryan v. C. V. R. R., 1 the 
 plaintiff, a laborer in the defendant's employment, was 
 engaged in repairing the road, and was carried to and 
 from his work on the cars, and while being so carried 
 he was injured by the negligence of the engine-driver. 
 It was held that he could not recover because he was 
 not a passenger, but a servant whose transportation was 
 an incident to his service, and that the defendant was 
 not liable for the negligence of the engine-driver, who 
 was the plaintiff's co-employe. 2 This rule has been 
 held to bar recovery in the case of a discharged servant, 
 who, on a journey to obtain other employment, was in- 
 jured while riding in a baggage car without payment of 
 fare; 3 but was held not to bar recovery in the case of a 
 servant of a contractor engaged in repairing the line and 
 transported in the railway's cars. 4 There are, however, 
 some cases which are not reconcilable with those which 
 have been quoted ; thus, in O'Donnell v. A. V. R. R., 5 
 the plaintiff, a journeyman carpenter, employed by the 
 defendant to repair its bridges, and carried to and from 
 his work by the defendant's train, was engaged at lower 
 wages in consideration of the company's carrying him 
 free to and from his work, and while being so carried 
 he was injured, the car in which he was riding being 
 thrown from the track by a broken rail. It was held 
 that the plaintiff was a passenger because he had no 
 duty to perform upon the train, and because, by the re- 
 
 1 23 Penna. St. 384. 
 
 * See also Gillshannoil v. S. B. R. R., 10 Cush. 228 ; Seaver v. B.& M.R.R., 
 14 Gfay 466; Russell v. II. R. R. R., 17 N. Y. 134; Ross v. N. Y. C. & H. R. 
 R. R., 74 Id. 617 ; N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R. v. Vick, 95 Id. 267, 17 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 609; K. I'. Ry., v. Salmon, 11 Kans. 83; McQueen v. C. B. U. P. 
 R. R, 30 Kans. (ISO. 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 226. 
 
 3 II &St. J. R. P.. v. Biggins, 36 Mo. 418. 
 
 4 Torpy v. ( i. T. Ry., 20 Up. ( 'an. (Q. B ) 446. 
 
 * 50 Penna. St. 490, 59 Id. 239.
 
 212 PASSENGER ACTING AS SERVANT. 
 
 duction in his wages, he, in effect, paid fare for his 
 transportation. 1 The right doctrine would seem to be 
 that whenever the person injured is carried in per- 
 formance of a contract of service, the railway is not 
 to be liable to him as a passenger, but only as a 
 servant. 
 
 217. It would seem also to be clear that a passenger 
 will not, by the performance of a casual service on a 
 train, cease to be a passenger and become an employe of 
 the railway. Thus, in C. V. R. R. v. Myers, 2 the con- 
 ductor of a private freight car which was being hauled 
 on the defendant's line, having, at the request of the 
 defendant's servant, cut loose the cars following his own, 
 and having resumed his proper place as a passenger, 
 was inj ured by negligence on the part of the engine- 
 driver ; and it was held that his recovery was not barred 
 because he had done an act of mere accommodation at 
 the request of defendant's servant, and without hire. 3 
 But where the passenger's injuries are clearly the result 
 of his voluntary act in taking upon himself the per- 
 formance of a servant's duty, the railway ought not to 
 be held liable to him, and such action ought to be re- 
 garded as contributory negligence on the part of the 
 passenger. In this view, the cases of Mel. R. R. v. 
 Bolton, 4 and P. P. Ry. v. Green, 5 would seem to have 
 been wrongly decided. 
 
 218. The relation of carrier and passenger begins 
 
 1 See also B. & O. R. R. v. The State, to use of Trainor, 33 Md. 542 ; Abell 
 v. W. M. R. R., 63 Md. 433, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 503. 
 4 55 Penna. St. 283. 
 
 3 See also Mel. R. R. v. Bolton, Ohio St. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 501 ; P. P. Ry. v. Green, 56 Md. 84, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168 ; cf. Degg 
 v. M. Ry.. 1 II. & N. 773; Potter v. Faulkner, 1 B. & S. 800, 101 E. C. L. ; 
 Everhart v. T. II. & I. R. R., 78 Ind. 202, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 599; 
 Kherman v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 4 Ohio St. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 501. 
 
 5 56 Md. 81, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168.
 
 PASSENGERS. 213 
 
 when, a contract of carriage having been made, or the 
 passenger having been accepted as such by the railway, 
 he has come upon the railway's premises, or has entered 
 upon any means of conveyance provided by the railway. 1 
 Thus, in Brien v. Bennett, 2 the issue being whether or 
 not the plaintiff was a passenger, it was held that proof 
 that the plaintiff, having held up his finger to the driver 
 of the defendant's omnibus, and that the driver, having 
 stopped to take him up, and just as the plaintiff was 
 putting his foot on the step of the omnibus, had driven 
 on, causing the plaintiff to fall, entitled the plaintiff to 
 the verdict on that issue. So, in Smith v. St. P. C. By., 3 
 one was held to be a passenger who had hailed the 
 driver of a street car, and for whom the car had been 
 stopped, and who, while having one foot upon the step 
 of the rear platform of the car, was in the act of opening 
 its door when he was injured by a collision between that 
 car and another car. 
 
 219. Of course, the mere purchase of a ticket does 
 not make the purchaser a passenger ; he must also come 
 upon the railway's premises, or upon its means of con- 
 veyance before the relation can be said to have begun. 
 Nor is it enough that he has come to the railway's sta- 
 tion with the intention of taking passage by its train at 
 some indefinite time in the future. He must come to 
 the station a reasonable time before the departure of 
 the train by which he is to travel. 4 But if a person has 
 
 1 Brien v. Bennett, 8 C. & P. 724, 34 E. C. L. ; Warren v. F. R. R., 8 Allen 
 227 ; Davis v. C. L. R. R., 10 How. Pr. 300; Gordon v. G. St. & N. R. P., 40 
 Barb. 546; Smith v. St. P. C. Ry., 32 Mian. 1, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 310 
 Allender v. C. R. R., 37 Iowa 264; \\\ St. L. & P. Ry. v. Rector, 104 111. 296 
 C. R. R. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 46J ; Cleveland v. X. .J Steamboat Co., 68 N. Y.306 
 II. & St. J. R.'R. v. Martin, 11 Bradwell 386; .serf. cf. I. C. R. R. v. Hudelson, 
 13 Ind. 325. 
 
 2 8 C. & P. 724, 34 E. C. L. 
 
 " 32 Minn. 1, 16 Am. & Enp. R. R. Cas. 310. 
 * Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79.
 
 2 14 W 11 IN RELATION BEGINS AND ENDS. 
 
 the bona fide intention of taking passage by a train, and 
 if he goes to a station at a reasonable time, he is entitled 
 to protection as a passenger, not only from the moment 
 he enters upon the railway's premises, but also while 
 en route to the station in an omnibus run by the rail- 
 way to take passengers to their trains. 1 
 
 2'20. The relation of carrier and passenger having 
 been constituted, continues until the journey, expressly 
 or impliedly contracted for, has been concluded, and 
 the passenger has left the railway's premises ; thus, 
 one w T ho has been accepted as a passenger, is entitled to 
 protection as such while he is in the railway's station, 
 journeying on its line, in transit from one means of 
 conveyance to another provided by the railway, and 
 while he is temporarily absent from the cars at a way 
 station for a proper purpose; 2 but, in State v. G. T. R. 
 R., 3 it is held, that a passenger, who temporarily leaves 
 a train at a way station short of his destination, is, 
 while absent from the train, not a passenger. And in 
 Johnson v. B. & M. II. R., 4 it was held, that a pas- 
 senger who, having in the course of a journey by rail, 
 stopped over for a clay at a w r ay station, and wdiile 
 there having gone to the railway station for a purpose 
 not directly connected with his journey, was not a pas- 
 senger while at its station. So, in Commonwealth v. 
 B. & M. R. R., 5 in the case of an indictment of the 
 railway under the Massachusetts Statute of 1874, 6 for 
 negligently causing the death of a passenger, it was 
 held, that one who had left the train while it was in 
 motion had voluntarily ceased to be a passenger, and 
 had thereby forfeited his right to protection in that 
 
 1 Buffett v. T. & B. R. E., 40 N. Y. 168. 
 
 2 Clussman v. L. I. R. R., 73 N. Y. 606 ; J., M. & I. R. R. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 
 568; K. N. L. Packet Co. v. True, 88 111. 608. 
 
 '■' 58 Me. 176. * 125 Mass. 75. 
 
 5 129 Milss. 500, 1 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 457. 6 C. 372, I 163.
 
 PERSONS OTHER THAN PASSENGERS. 215 
 
 character. A person who has been rightfully ejected 
 from the cars for misconduct or non-payment of fare, 
 cannot become a passenger by subsequently entering 
 the car and tendering his fare. 1 A passenger who has, 
 by mistake, taken a wrong train, is, so far as regards 
 protection from injury, a passenger on that train. 2 
 
 221. The relation of carrier and passenger ends only 
 when the journey contracted for has been concluded, 
 and the passenger has left the railway's premises ; 3 or, 
 if a reasonable time has elapsed after the arrival of the 
 train at the passenger's destination, which was sufficient 
 for the passenger to leave the railway premises. 4 
 
 III. PERSONS OTHER THAN PASSENGERS TO WHOM THE 
 RAILWAY IS LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT IT 
 IS LIABLE TO ITS PASSENGERS. 
 
 222. The general principle stated in section 208, deter- 
 mines the liability of railways to post-office employes 
 carried under contract with the post-office, or under a 
 statutory duty imposed upon the railway ; thus, in Col- 
 lett v. L. & N. W. Ry., 5 the declaration having averred 
 that the defendant was bound by a statute to carry the 
 mails together with any officer of the post-office depart- 
 ment whom the postmaster-general should designate, 
 that the plaintiff was so designated, that while being 
 carried by the defendant, with the mails, he was* in- 
 
 1 O'Brien v. B. & W. R. R., 15 Gray 20; Hibbard v. N. Y. & E. R. R., 15 
 N. Y. 455 ; c/. Dietrich v. P. R. R., 71 Penna. St. 432 ; State v. Overton, 4 Zab. 
 
 438. 
 
 2 C, C. & I. R. R. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37. 
 
 3 P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222. 
 
 * Imhoff v. C. & M. R. R., 20 Wise. 344. 5 1G Q. B. 984, 71 E. O. L. 
 
 The persons, other than passengers, to whom the railway owes the same 
 measure of duty which it owes to its passengers, are enumerated in section 
 140, and the general principle determining the liability of the railway to 
 these several classes of persons is stated in section 208.
 
 216 POST-OFFICE EMPLOYES. 
 
 jured by the negligence of the defendant's servants, 
 judgment was, on general demurrer, entered for the 
 plaintiff, Campbell, C. J., saying, " the defendant's duty 
 does not arise in respect of any contract between the 
 company and the persons conveyed by them, but is one 
 which the law imposes; if they are bound to carry 
 they are bound to carry safely;" and Patteson, J., 
 adding, " the plaintiff's right to sue arises, not from any 
 particular contract with the defendants, but from their 
 general duty to carry the mails and officers ;" and Erie, 
 J., adding, " the defendants have a public duty to per- 
 form in conveying the servants of the public safely ; 
 the plaintiff has been injured by their neglect in the 
 performance of that duty, and has a right of action in 
 consequence." 1 In P. R. R. v. Price, 2 where a mail 
 agent, while engaged in the performance of his duty on 
 a train, had been killed by negligence on the part of 
 the railway, the court held that he was not a passenger, 
 but that he was " lawfully engaged" on the train within 
 the terms of the Pennsylvania Act of 4th April, 1868, 
 and that a recovery of damages for his death was barred 
 by that act. Railways are also liable to the same ex- 
 tent in the cases of soldiers carried under contract with 
 the government, 3 and agents carried under contract 
 with the express company employing them, 4 and vend- 
 ors of newspapers, refreshments, etc., who are permitted 
 by railways to travel on their trains for the purpose of 
 selling their wares to passengers ; 5 but a person accom- 
 
 1 See, also, Nolton v. W. E. E., 15 N. Y. 444 ; Seybolt v. N. Y„ L. E. & W. 
 E. E., 95 Id. 562 ; Hammond v. N. E. Ey., 6 S. C. 130 ; H. & I. C. Ey. v. 
 Hampton, 64 Tex. 427, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 291. 
 
 2 96 Penna. St. 256. 
 
 3 Tnmx v. E. E. E., 4 Lansing 198. 
 
 * Blair v. E. E. E., 66 N. Y. 313 ; Chamberlain v. M. & M. E. E., 11 Wise 
 238 ; Penna. Co. v. Woodworth, 26 Ohio St. 585. 
 
 5 Commonwealth v. V. C. E. E., 108 Mass. 7 ; Yeomans v. C, C. S. N. Co., 44 
 Cal. 71.
 
 PASSENGERS OF OTHER LINES. 217 
 
 panying an express agent at his invitation, 1 and a news- 
 boy riding on a train without the permission of the 
 railway, and solely by the connivance of the train 
 hands, 2 are to be regarded as trespassers, for the rail- 
 way is no party to their jDresence on the train. 
 
 223. Upon the same principle, the railway is liable to 
 ihe passenger of another railway whose cars are run 
 over the line of the railway ; thus, in Grote v. C. & 
 H. By., 3 the defendant was held liable to the plaintiff, 
 who, while being carried as a passenger in the cars of 
 the S. & C. Rv. over the defendant's line (a rental being: 
 paid by the S. & C. Ry. to the defendant for the use of 
 its line), was injured by the fall of a bridge which had 
 been negligently constructed. So in Reynolds v. N. E. 
 Ry., 4 where a passenger having taken a ticket from rail- 
 way A for a journey over its line, and over the lines of 
 railways B and C, was injured on the line of B, it was 
 held that B was liable to him. So in Daly ell v. Tyrer, 5 
 the plaintiff having contracted with a ferryman to be car- 
 ried daily for a certain period was, while being ferried on 
 one of those days by a boat and crew hired by the ferry- 
 man, injured by negligence on the part of that crew, and 
 the master of the boat and crew was held liable to him." 
 
 224. The same rule is applied in cases of injury to 
 the passengers of another railway with whom a station 
 is jointly occupied; thus, in Tebbutt v. B. <fc E. Ry., 7 
 the stations at Bristol of the M., the B. & E., and the 
 G. W. railways were adjoining and open to one another, 
 
 1 M. P. Ry. v. Nichols, 8 Kans. 505. 
 
 2 Duff v. A. V. R. R., 91 Penna. St. 458. 8 2 Ex. 251. 
 
 * Roscoe's X. P. 591, cited by Thesiger, L. J., in Foulkes v. M. Ry., 5 C. P. 
 D. 169. 
 
 5 2S L. J. Q. B. 52, El. Bl. & El. 899, 96 E. C. L. 
 
 6 See also Martin v. G. I. P. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 9; Gill r. M. S. & L. Ry., L. 
 R. 8 Q. B. 186 ; Schopman v. E. & W. R. R., 9 dish. 24 ; W. St. L. & P. Ry." 
 v. Peyton, 106 111. 534. 
 
 ' L. R Q. B. 73.
 
 218 PASSENGERS OF OTHER LINES. 
 
 and the plaintiff having come in by a train of the M. 
 Ry., and intending to go on by the G. W. railway, was 
 passing through the defendant's station on his way to 
 the G. W- station when lie was injured by the negli- 
 gence of a servant of defendant in moving a truck laden 
 with luggage, and a verdict having passed for the plain- 
 tiff a rule for a new trial was discharged. 
 
 225. The same rule is applied in cases of injuries to 
 passengers of another railway at level crossings of the 
 two roads, and in jurisdictions, where the rule in Thoro- 
 good v. Bryan is not enforced, negligence upon the part 
 of the carrier constitutes no defence to the railway whose 
 negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. 1 Upon 
 the same principle in Patterson v. W. St. L. & P. Ry., 2 
 a line owned by the P. R. R. being used by several 
 companies under running powers granted by contract, 
 the plaintiff, a passenger on a train of one of those com- 
 panies, was held to be entitled to recover from another 
 of the companies for injuries caused by the negligent 
 displacement of a switch by a servant of the last-men- 
 tioned company. 
 
 226. The application of the same rule determines the 
 liability of a railway to the passengers of another rail- 
 way received by it for transportation in its cars ; thus in 
 Foulkes v. M. D. Ry., 3 the defendant company having 
 running powers over the line of the S. W. Ry., and the 
 plaintiff having bought at Richmond, on the line of the 
 S. W. Ry., a ticket from the S. W. company which en- 
 titled him to be carried to Hammersmith, on the line of 
 the M. D. Ry., and returned from there to Richmond, 
 the two companies by arrangement dividing the pro- 
 ceeds of the sales of such tickets, and having been re- 
 
 1 P. C. & St. L. R. R. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 478. 
 * 54 Mich. 91, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 130. 
 8 4 C. P. D. 267, 5 Id. 157.
 
 ATTENDANTS OF PASSENGERS. 219 
 
 ceived for his return journey as a passenger in a carriage 
 of the defendant company, was, at the termination of 
 that journey, injured in alighting at the Richmond sta- 
 tion of the S. W. Ry. by reason of the carriage being 
 unsuited to the station platform. After verdict for the 
 plaintiff, a rule to set aside that verdict and to enter a 
 verdict and judgment for the defendant was discharged 
 by the Common Pleas Division, and the defendant's 
 appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeal. The 
 judgments in both courts were put upon the ground 
 that the defendant having permitted the plaintiff to 
 travel by their train was bound to make provision for 
 his safety, but Bramwell, L. J., said, in concluding his 
 judgment, " if the contract had not been a contract with 
 the defendants and all that could have been complained 
 of was a non-feasance, I should hold that they were not 
 liable." This doctrine does not seem to be reconcilable 
 with the judgment in that case, nor with the drift of the 
 authorities. 
 
 227. Those who, by the permission of the railway, 
 come upon its premises to render personal assistance to 
 arriving or departing passengers are not mere licensees, 
 for the relation between the railway and its passengers 
 extends to and protects those whom the railway permits 
 to attend the passenger upon its premises. The railway 
 may, if it chooses, exclude such attendants from its 
 premises, or from any part thereof, but if it permits their 
 presence it is bound to protect them to the same extent 
 that it is bound to provide for the safety of its pas- 
 sengers ; thus, in McKone v. M. C. R. R., 1 the railway 
 was held liable for injuries caused by the unsafe con- 
 dition of its station surroundings to a husband who had 
 come upon the railway's premises to meet his wife, who 
 was a passenger upon an incoming train. So in Lan- 
 
 1 51 Mich. G01, 13 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 2'J.
 
 220 SERVANTS OF OTHER LINES. 
 
 gan v. St. L., L, M. & S. Ry., 1 tlie railway was held 
 liable to a person who, having come to its station to see 
 a friend off, was, while walking on the platform, struck 
 in the back by the bumper of a moving engine, which 
 bumper projected eighteen inches over the platform. So 
 in Stiles v. A. & W. P. R. P., 2 where the injured person 
 had boarded a railway train, when it had stopped near a 
 station, to look for his wife and child who were pas- 
 sengers on the train, it was held that although he was 
 entitled to all the rights of a passenger, yet the proofs 
 showed so clear a case of contributory negligence on his 
 part that the railway was not to be held liable for his 
 injuries. 3 In Tobin v. P. S. & P. P. P., 4 this rule was 
 held to render the railway liable for its negligence to a 
 hackman who had driven a passenger to the railway 
 station. Lucas v. N. B. & T. P. P., 5 does not contradict 
 these authorities, for, in that case, the person injured hav- 
 ing entered a car of the defendant at its station, not as a pas- 
 senger, but forthe purpose of assistingan infirm passenger, 
 was injured in leaving the car after the train had started, 
 and it was, therefore, a clear case of self-inflicted injury. 
 228. The same rule is applied in cases of injuries to 
 the servants of another railway while upon the line or 
 premises of the defendant in the performance of their 
 duty to that other railway ; thus, in Vose v. L. & Y. 
 Py., e a station being in the joint occupation of the de- 
 fendant and the E. L. Ry., and the plaintiff's decedent, 
 a blacksmith in the service of the E. L. Py., while en- 
 gaged in repairing one of its wagons on a siding at the 
 station, was killed by the negligent shunting of a train 
 
 1 72 Mo. 392, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 355. 
 
 2 65 Ga. 370, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 195. 
 
 8 See also Doss v. M. K. & T. R. R., 59 Mo. 27 ; Hamilton v. T. & P. Ry., 64 
 Tex. 251, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 33G. * 59 Me. 183. 
 
 5 6 Gray 65. See also Griswold v. C. & N. W. R. R., Wise. , 23 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 463. 6 2 H. & N. 728.
 
 SERVANTS OF OTHER LINES. 221 
 
 of the L. & Y. Co. on that siding. The jury having 
 found specially that the regulations for the management 
 of the station were defective, and that no persons other 
 than the defendants were negligent, the verdict was en- 
 tered for the plaintiff, and a rule for a new trial was 
 discharged. So in Graham v. N. E. By., 1 the plaintiff, 
 a guard in the service of the N. B. By., which had 
 statutory running powers over the defendant's line, was, 
 while engaged in the performance of his duty on a train 
 of the N. B. Company, passing over the defendant's line, 
 injured by his head coming in contact with a post which 
 was in such proximity to the line as necessarily to en- 
 danger the safety of guards on the trains. The jury 
 having found for the plaintiff, a rule for a new trial was 
 discharged. So in Snow v. H. B. B., 2 the W. B. B. 
 having, by agreement, running powers over certain 
 tracks of the defendant at D., and the plaintiff, a servant 
 in the employment of the W. B. B., having been injured 
 by a defect in the planks between the rails of the de- 
 fendant's tracks, was held entitled to recover from the 
 defendant. So in C. B. B. v. Armstrong, 3 the defendant 
 having running powers over the line of the P. & E. B. 
 B., and the plaintiff's decedent, a servant of the P. & 
 E. B. B., while travelling on its line in a hand-car for 
 the purpose of going to the point where he was to repair 
 a broken rail, having been killed by the negligent 
 movement of a train of the defendant company, it was 
 held that his connection with the P. & E. B. B. did not 
 bar his recovery from the defendant. So in Brown v. 
 G. W. By., 4 a collision having occurred at a railway 
 grade crossing between trains of two lines, because of a 
 failure of the air-brakes on one train to act, and because 
 
 1 18 C. B. N. S. 229, 114 E C. L. * 8 Allen 441. 
 
 3 49 Penna. St. 186, 52 Id. 282. 
 
 4 40 Up. Can. Q. B. 333, 2 Ont. Ap. Cas. 64, 3 Can. S. C. 159.
 
 222 SERVANTS OF OTIIER LINES. 
 
 of the neglect of the servants on that train to apply the 
 air-brakes at a distance from the crossing sufficient to 
 permit the stoppage of the train by the use of its hand- 
 brakes, the railway owning and operating that train 
 was held liable to a servant of the other railway who 
 was injured by the collision while engaged upon the 
 other colliding train. 1 The same rule was applied in 
 Swainson v. N. E. Ry., 2 in the case of a signal man, one 
 of a joint station staff, but engaged and paid by one com- 
 pany, and injured by the negligence of the servants of 
 the other company, while in the discharge of his duties 
 to both companies. 3 The result of the authorities is, 
 that where a line, or a station, is in the joint occupancy 
 of two or more companies, the servants of each company 
 are not servants of the other companies, nor fellow-ser- 
 vants with the servants of those other companies, but 
 their right of recovery, in case of injury caused by neg- 
 ligence upon the part of those other companies, either 
 in an original defective construction of their lines, as in 
 Graham's case, or in a failure to maintain the line in an 
 adequate condition of repair, as in Snow's case, or in the 
 carelessness of their servants, as in Vose's, Armstrong's, 
 Warburton's, and Brown's cases, is that not of a servant 
 but of a passenger. In this class of cases, the injured 
 persons are more than mere licensees. The relation be- 
 tween the railway whom they serve and the other rail- 
 way, by whose negligence they are injured, is so far 
 founded upon a valuable consideration, that it raises upon 
 the part of that other railway an implied obligation that 
 it will not be negligent as against those servants. 
 
 1 See also Warburton v. S. W. Ry., L. R. 2 Ex. 30 ; P., W. & B. R. R. v. The 
 State, 58 Md. 372; I. C. R. R. v. Frelka, 110 111. 498, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 7 ; Penna. Co. v. Gallagher, 40 Ohio St. 637, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 341 ; In re Merrill (C. V. R. R.), 54 Vt. 200, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 680; 
 Zeigler v. D. & N. R. R., 52 Conn. 543, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 400. 
 
 2 3 Ex. D. 341. 8 See also Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 H. & N. 143.
 
 CONSIGNORS AND CONSIGNEES. 223 
 
 229. The same rule is applied in cases of injury to con- 
 signors and consignees personally assisting in the delivery 
 or reception of their freight. Thus, in Holmes v. N. E. 
 Ry., 1 it being the usage of business at a railway station for 
 coal wagons to be shunted on a siding and there unladen 
 by the shooting of their contents into cells beneath the 
 siding, the consignees personally assisting in the opera- 
 tion, the plaintiff while, with the acquiescence of the 
 railway's station-master, passing along a flagged way 
 over the cells for the purpose of getting some coal from 
 a wagon which had been consigned to him, was injured 
 by the giving way of a flag, and a consequent fall into 
 a cell ; and a verdict having passed for the plaintiff, a 
 rule to enter the verdict for the defendant for want of 
 evidence of negligence was discharged, upon the ground 
 that the relation between the consignee and the railway, 
 and the acquiescence of the station-master in the con- 
 signee's action raised an implied warranty on the part 
 of the railway, that its premises were reasonably safe, 
 and rendered it liable for the consequences of a breach 
 of that warranty ; and in the Court of Exchequer 
 Chamber, the order of the Exchequer Division was af- 
 firmed upon the ground stated in the judgments of the 
 court below. So, in Wright v. L. & N. W. Ry., 2 the 
 same principle was applied by the Court of Appeal in 
 the case of a consignee of cattle, who, while with the 
 permission of the railway's station-master, assisting in 
 the shunting of a car which had been consigned to him, 
 was injured by the negligent movement of another car 
 by the railway's servants, Coleridge, L. J., saying, " the 
 defendants being bound by contract to deliver the heifer 
 to the plaintiff, they, by their representative, the station- 
 master, allowed the plaintiff to take part in the delivery, 
 
 1 L. R. 4 Ex. 254, 6 Id. 123. 
 
 7 L. R. 10 Q. B. 298, 1 Q. B. 1 252.
 
 224 CONSIGNORS AND CONSIGNEES. 
 
 and they were, therefore, bound to see that he did not 
 get injured by the negligence of their servants." So, 
 in A. V. R. R. v. Findlay, 1 the plaintiff, a teamster, 
 having gone to the defendant's station to receive a con- 
 signment of lime, and having brought his team up to 
 the track upon the assurance of the station agent that 
 no train would pass for half an hour, and a train hav- 
 ing come unexpectedly and rapidly, and injured the 
 plaintiff's horse, judgment upon a verdict for the plain- 
 tiff was affirmed in error. 2 But the railway is not 
 liable to a volunteer who, while assisting a consignee in 
 removing his freight, is injured by the breaking of a 
 crane erected by the railway on its premises, and per- 
 mitted to be used by the consignee, for the railway owes 
 no duty to the volunteer. 3 Nor is the railway liable to 
 a consignee who is contributory negligent, as, for ex- 
 ample, in driving a wagon into a passage way on the 
 side of a canal so narrow that in attempting to pass an- 
 other wagon he is thrown into the canal ; 4 or in going 
 on the line between the cars of a freight train for the 
 purpose of uncoupling the cars ; 5 or in carelessly cross- 
 ing the tracks in a railway yard ; 6 or in walking on the 
 line in a railway yard in front of a locomotive and 
 train which is obviously ready to move. 7 
 
 1 4 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 438. 
 
 1 See also Foss v. C. M. & St. P. R. R., 33 Minn. 392, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 113; Watson v. W. St. L. & P. Ry., 66 Iowa 164, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 114; I. C. R. R. v. Hoffman, 67 111. 287 ; Newson v. N. Y. C. R. R., 29 
 N. Y. 383 ; N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 ; S. L. B. R. R. v. 
 Lewark, 4 Ind. 471 ; Same v. Lynch, 4 Ind. 494. 
 
 3 Blakemore ». B. & E. Ry., 8 El. & Bl. 1035, 92 E. C. L. In Heaven v. 
 Pender, 11 Q. B. D. 516, Cotton and Bowen, L. J J., question the propriety of 
 considering the plaintiff in Blakemore's case as a volunteer. 
 
 * Goldstein v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 46 Wise. 404. 
 
 5 Burns v. B. & L. R. R., 101 Mass. 50. 
 
 6 Rogstad v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 31 Minn. 208, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 648. 
 
 7 B. & O. R. R. v. Depew, 40 Ohio St. 121, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 64.
 
 SPECIAL CONTRACTS. 225 
 
 230. The same rule is applied in cases of injury to 
 persons using for hire, or under special contract, any 
 portion of the railway's line or premises ; thus, in Mar- 
 fell v. S. W. Ry., 1 a railway having parallel to its line 
 a tramway, which was used by those of the public who 
 paid tolls to the railway for drawing goods in trucks on 
 the tramway, and which tramway crossed the railway's 
 line at a point where there were swinging gates, and 
 while the plaintiff's servants with a horse and truck 
 were crossing the line, the horse, becoming frightened 
 by an approaching train, swerved upon the line and 
 was killed, and it was held that the railway was liable, 
 for the plaintiff, by reason of his using the tramway 
 for hire, was entitled to insist upon its being reasonably 
 secure. 
 
 ry. THE MODIFICATION OF THE RULE IN PENNSYLVANIA 
 BY STATUTE. 
 
 231. The application -of the general rule, as stated 
 in section 208, has been limited by statute in Pennsyl- 
 vania, for the Act of 4 April, 1868, 2 provides "that 
 when any person shall sustain personal injury or loss 
 of life while lawfully engaged or employed about the 
 roads, works, depots, and premises of a railroad com- 
 pany, or in or about any train or car therein or thereon, 
 of which company such person is not an employe, 
 the right of action and recovery in all such cases 
 against the company shall be such only as would exist 
 if such person were an employe; provided, that this 
 section shall not apply to passengers." The constitu- 
 tionality of this statute has been sustained in Kirby v. 
 P. R. R., 3 Agnew, C. J., delivering the judgment, as 
 
 1 8 C. B. N. S. 52o, 98 E. C. L. 
 
 * Para. Laws 1868, p. 58, 2 Pur. Dig. pi. 5. 
 
 * 76 Penna. St. 500. 
 16
 
 22G THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 18G8. 
 
 follows: "it maybe conceded that the natural rights 
 of men, among them that of personal security, are 
 guarded by the Bill of Rights, and ' that all courts shall 
 be open, and every man for an injury done him, in his 
 lands, goods, person, and reputation, shall have remedy 
 by due course of law, and right and justice administered 
 without sale, denial, or delay.' But in what respect 
 does this law trench upon this guaranty, or, indeed, on 
 any other in the Constitution? The person to be 
 affected by it must be one lawfully engaged or employed 
 on or about the road, etc. To be thus engaged he must 
 be there by his own consent. He is, therefore, volun- 
 tarily there, to perform some act or business connected 
 with the road or its works. He knowingly assumes a 
 relation regulated by the law, and thus places himself 
 under the operation of the law which governs the rela- 
 tion. He is not bound to assume the relation, and 
 when he does he acts with his eyes open. The law is 
 not retrospective, and takes from him no remedy for an 
 injury already sustained. The relation he assumes is 
 one of danger, and the fact of danger authorizes the 
 regulation by the State, as the conservator of the lives, 
 security, and property of her citizens. It is a police 
 regulation, which, having respect to the general good, 
 forbids individuals from undertaking a dangerous em- 
 ployment, except at their own risk, to the same extent 
 as if they were in the immediate employment of the 
 railroad company. Leaving each one to assert his 
 proper remedy against the person whose act of negli- 
 gence does him the injury, the law says to him that the 
 legal principle of respondeat superior shall have no 
 place in this particular relation ; that, as a matter of 
 proper policy for the good of all, those who voluntarily 
 venture into employment alongside of the servants of a 
 railroad company, shall have just the same remedies for
 
 THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 1868. 227 
 
 injuries happening in the employment that these have, 
 and none other. In doing this, no fundamental right r 
 of the person thus voluntarily venturing is cut off or 
 struck down. The liability of the company for the 
 acts or omissions of others, though they be servants, is 
 only an offspring of law. The negligence which injures 
 is not theirs in fact, but is so only by imputation of law. 
 The law which thus imputes it to the company for rea- 
 sons of policy, can remove the imputation from the 
 master, and let it remain with the servant, whose negli- 
 gence causes the injury." 
 
 232. Paxson, J., states in his judgment in Mulherriu 
 v. D., L. & W. R. R., 1 that it is probable that the act was 
 passed in view of the assertion in C. R. R. v. Armstrong, 2 
 of the well-settled rule of law, that where one railway 
 grants to another railway running powers over its line, 
 a servant of the one railway is not a fellow-servant of 
 the servants of that other railway, and, therefore, not 
 barred from recovering from that other railway for in- 
 juries caused by the negligence of its servants. But 
 whatever may have been the reasons which induced the 
 legislative mind to enact the statute, it is certainly an 
 unjustifiable exercise of legislative power, and it ought 
 to be strictly construed. An analysis of the act shows, 
 that in order to bring any person within its purview it 
 must be proven, first, that the person is not a servant 
 of, or a passenger upon, the railway ; second, that the 
 injury must have occurred while the person injured was 
 lawfully engaged, or employed, on or about the line, 
 premises, or cars, of the railway, and that when these 
 facts are proven the right of recovery of the person in- 
 jured will be neither more nor less than that of a ser- 
 vant of the railway. The dictum of Gordon, J., in 
 
 1 81 PenDa. St. 366. » 49 Penna. St. 186.
 
 228 THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 1868. 
 
 Ricard v. N. P. R. R., 1 that the words " engaged or em 
 ployed " as used in the statute comprehend " every 
 imaginable manner by which any one may, or might 
 be, brought in, upon, or about, the roadbed, cars, or 
 works of a railroad company," although quoted with 
 approval by Paxson, J., in P. R. R. v. Price, 2 would 
 seem to be disapproved of by the judgment of the court 
 iu the later case of Richter v. P. R. R 3 That dictum 
 is also irreconcilable with the reasoning upon which the 
 constitutionality of the statute is supported in Kirby v. 
 P. R. R., as a police regulation forbidding individuals 
 from knowingly undertaking a dangerous employment 
 connected with a railway line, except upon the implied 
 condition that tbey will hold the railway to no greater 
 liability than that which it incurs with regard to its 
 servants. 
 
 233. It has been held that the statute bars recovery, 
 in the case of a plaintiff who, while engaged in the ser- 
 vice of another party in loading coal on a siding which 
 was in the sole possession and under the exclusive con- 
 trol of the railway, was injured by the disengagement 
 from their engine of some cars which were not equipped 
 with a sufficient number of train hands to control them, 
 and which, running upon a down grade, came upon the 
 siding, the switch connecting the siding with the main 
 line having been left open by the negligence of the rail- 
 way's servants ; 4 where the railway had running powers 
 over the line of another company, and the plaintiff, a 
 freight brakeman in the employment of that other com- 
 pany, having left his train to turn a switch, while walking 
 on the line was run over by a train of the first-men- 
 tioned railway, of whose approach no notice was given; 5 
 
 1 80 Penna. St. 195. 2 96 Penna. St. 267. 
 
 » 104 Penna. St. 51 1. * Kirby v. P. K. K. ( 76 Penna. St. 508, 
 
 5 D., L. & W. R. Pv. v. Mulherrin, SI Penna. St. 366.
 
 THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 1863. 229 
 
 where the plaintiff, having gone to a station to receive 
 freight consigned to him, and having, by permission of 
 the railway's agent, and for the purpose of unloading 
 his freight, entered a car upon a siding, was injured by 
 the negligence of the railway's servants in shunting cars 
 to the siding j 1 where a person, while unloading freight 
 from a ship lying at a wharf owned and controlled by 
 the railway, was injured by the negligence of the rail- 
 way's servants in permitting an unusual escape of steam 
 from an engine and so frightening the plaintiff's horses; 2 
 where the plaintiff, being the employe of a coal dealer, 
 and engaged in unloading cars upon a siding constructed 
 by the dealer upon his own land, and used by the rail- 
 way, not as part of its line, but only for the purpose of 
 delivering coal to the dealer, was injured by a collision 
 caused by the negligent shifting of cars from the defend- 
 ant's main line ; 3 and where the plaintiff, a mail agent 
 of the Post Office Department travelling on defendant's 
 line in the performance of his duties as such mail agent, 
 was injured by the negligence of the railway's servants 
 in disobeying orders and thus causing a collision. 4 
 
 234. The statute has been held not to bar recovery 
 in the case of a plaintiff who, while employed in and 
 about a rolling mill in hauling ashes in a barrow across 
 a siding upon his employer's premises, found the way 
 blocked by some empty cars unattached to any engine 
 or train, and in uncoupling and attempting to move the 
 cars was killed by a movement of the cars, caused by 
 the negligence of an engine-driver of the defendant 
 
 1 Ricard v. N. P. R. R., 89 Pcnna. St. 193. 
 
 J Gerard v. P. R. R., 12 Pi.ila. 394 ; 5 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 251. 
 
 3 Cummings v. P., C. & St. L. R R., 92 Penna. St. 82. 
 
 4 P. R. R. v. Price, 96 Penna. St. 256 (affirmed in 113 U. S. 219, on the 
 ground (hat the record raised no question of which the Supreme Court of the 
 United States could take cognizance on appeal from a State court).
 
 230 THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 18G8. 
 
 in moving the cars without notice j 1 nor in the case 
 of a servant of the owner of a lumber yard adjoining 
 the railway line, in which yard there was a siding from 
 the railway, who was killed by cars run on the siding 
 and striking against a car with a defective brake and 
 unblocked, which had by the negligence of the rail- 
 way been permitted to remain on the siding. 2 
 
 235. Some of these decisions seem to be open to criti- 
 cism. In Kirby v. P. R. R., the negligence upon the 
 part of the railway was two-fold, first, in that the cars 
 that did the injury were insufficiently equipped with 
 train hands, and, second, in that the switch was negli- 
 gently left open. If the plaintiff had been a servant 
 of the railway he could not have recovered from the 
 railway upon the second ground, for that was the negli- 
 gence of his co-employes; but, although a servant, he 
 could have recovered upon the first ground of negli- 
 gence, for it was the duty of the railway to have its 
 cars equipped with a sufficient number of train hands 
 to prevent injury to other servants from that cause. It 
 would seem, therefore, that in that case the statute 
 ought not to have barred the plaintiff's recovery. The 
 case of Cummings v. P., C. & St. L. R. R., in which it 
 was held that the plaintiff came within the terms of the 
 statute, is not reconcilable with the case of N. P. R. R. 
 v. Kirk, in which, upon a similar state of facts, a con- 
 trary conclusion was reached. In the first-mentioned 
 case the locus in quo of the injury was a siding con- 
 structed by a coal dealer upon his own land, and used 
 by the railway, not as a part of its line (as was the case 
 in Kirby v. P. R. R.), but only for the convenience of 
 the dealer in delivering coal to him. This statute 
 
 1 Eichter v. P. K. K., 104 Penna. St. 511. 
 
 2 N. P. K. E. v. Kirk, 90 Penna. St. 15, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 45.
 
 THE DUTY TO PASSENGERS. 231 
 
 ought to be repealed, for its only office is to relieve 
 railways from paying a just compensation to persons 
 injured, without fault on their part, by the negligence of 
 the servants of the railway. In future judicial applica- 
 tions of the statute, it may, perhaps, be borne in mind, 
 that to bar the plaintiff's recovery, it must be shown 
 that, not being a passenger or a servant, he voluntarily 
 entered upon an employment which exposed him to 
 danger in the course of the operation of the railway, 
 and that, if injured without fault on his part, he can 
 recover, notwithstanding the statute, wherever, under 
 like circumstances, a servant of the railway could re- 
 cover. 
 
 V. THE GENERAL DUTY OF THE RAILWAY TO PASSEN- 
 GERS. 
 
 The duty of the railway to its passengers, and to those to whom it otves 
 the same measure of duty that it owes to its passengers, requires it to 
 exercise the highest degree of care fur, but does not make it an in- 
 surer of, their safety. 
 
 236. As Montague Smith, J., said, in Readhead v. M. 
 Ry., 1 " the law of England has, from the earliest times, 
 established a broad distinction between the liability of 
 common carriers of goods and of passengers." In the 
 leading case of Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Holt, C. J., thus states 
 the rule with regard to the liability of common carriers 
 of goods and the reason for it. " The law charges this 
 person thus entrusted to carry goods against all events 
 but acts of God and of the enemies of the King. 
 For, though the force be never so great, as if an irre- 
 sistible multitude of people should rob him, never- 
 theless he is chargeable. And this is a politic estab- 
 lishment contrived by the policy of the law for the 
 
 1 L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. > 2 Ld. Raymond 918, 1 Sm. L. C. 291.
 
 232 THE DUTY TO PASSENGERS. 
 
 safety of all persons, the necessity of whose affairs 
 oblige them to trust these sorts of persons, that they 
 may be safe in their ways of dealing; for else these 
 carriers might have an opportunity of undoing all per- 
 sons that had any dealings with them, by combining 
 with thieves, etc., and yet doing it in such a clandestine 
 manner as would not be possible to be discovered. And 
 this is the reason the law is founded upon in that point." 
 It is obvious that neither the rule thus stated, nor the 
 reason given for it, is applicable to carriers of passen- 
 gers. In White v. Boulton, 1 Kenyon, C. J., at Nisi 
 Prius in 1791, directed the jury that carriers were 
 bound to carry their passengers "safely and properly." 
 In 1809, in Christie v. Griggs, 2 Sir James Mansfield, 
 C. J., held the carrier's duty to be, " that, as far as 
 human care and foresight could go, he would provide 
 safe conveyance." In Harris v. Costar, 3 Best, J., held 
 that the obligation to carry safely " meant that the de- 
 fendants were to use due care." Innumerable dicta to 
 a like effect might be quoted, but it is sufficient to cite 
 the words of Grier, J., who said, in the leading case in 
 the United States, 4 that " when carriers undertake to 
 convey persons by the powerful but dangerous agency 
 of steam, public policy and safety require that they 
 be held to the greatest possible care and diligence. And 
 whether the consideration for such transportation be 
 pecuniary or otherwise, the personal safety of the pas- 
 sengers should not be left to the sport of chance or the 
 negligence of careless agents." The general rule, as 
 thus stated, is supported by a multitude of authorities. 5 
 
 1 Peake 113. 2 2 Camp. 79. 3 1 C. & P. 636, 11 E. C. L. 
 
 4 P. & K. R. R. v Derby, 14 Howard 468. 
 
 5 Christie v Griggs, 2 Camp. 80 ; Bremner i>. Williams, 1 C. & P. 414, 11 E. C. 
 L. ; Sharp v. Gray, 9 Bing. 457 ; White v. Boulton, Peake 113; Harris v. Cos- 
 tar, 1 C. & P. 636, 1 1 E. C. L. ; Fowler v. Locke, L. R. 7 C. P. 272, 9 Id. 751 n. ; 
 Searle v. Laveriek, L. R. 9 Q. B. 122; Kopitoff v. Wilson, 1 Q. B. D. 377;
 
 RAILWAYS NOT INSURERS. 233 
 
 237. Railways, nor being insurers of the safety of 
 their passengers, nor liable for injuries to their pas- 
 sengers caused by an act of God, or resulting from in- 
 evitable accident, it would seem to follow that they 
 could not reasonably be held answerable for injuries to 
 their passengers resulting from such defects in their 
 machinery or appliances as could not have been guarded 
 against by the exercise of care on their part. Yet there 
 has been some conflict of authority on this point. This 
 question seems first to have been raised in Ingalls v. 
 Bills, 1 where the plaintiff, a passenger on a coach, was 
 injured by the breaking of an axletree of the coach by 
 reason of a hidden flaw, which the most careful exami- 
 nation failed to discover. Hubbard, J., in a learned 
 and soundly reasoned opinion, summed up the law in 
 the proposition that "where the accident arises from a 
 hidden and internal defect which a careful and thorough 
 
 Randall v. Newson, 2 Id. 102 ; Hyman v. Nye, 6 Id. 685 ; White v. F. R. R., 
 136 Mass. 321 ; Sales v. Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa 547 ; Wilson v. N. P. R. 
 R., 26 Minn. 280; Warren v. F. R. R , 8 Allen 233; Taylor v G. T. Ry.. 48 
 N. H. 229 ; T., H. & W. R. R. v. Baddeley, 54 111. 19 ; Dunn v. G. T. Ry.', 58 
 Me. 157 ; Tuller v. Talbot, 23 111. 357 ; P. & C. R. R. v. Thompson, 56 Id. 
 138 ; I. & St. L. R. R. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ; T. H. & I. R. R. v. Jackson, 81 
 Ind. 20 ; Sherlock v. Ailing, 44 Id. 184; Penna.Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451 ; M. 
 R. R. v. Blakely, 59 Ala. 477 ; Tanner v. L. & N. R. R., 60 Id. 621 ; Wheaton 
 v. N., B. & M. R. R, 36 Cal. 593 ; P. P. C. Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344 ; Der- 
 wort v. Loomer, 21 Conn. 253; Flinn v. P., W. & B. R. R., 1 Houston (Del.) 
 499; U. P. R. R. v. Hand, 7 Kans. 392; Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush. 151; 
 Black v. C. R. R., 10 La. An. 38 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Worthington, 21 Md. 275 ; 
 McClary v. S. C. P. R. R, 3 Neb. 54 ; Laing v. Colder, 8 Penna. St. 482 ; 
 Meier v. P. R. R., 64 Id. 230 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 Id. 351 ; I. & G. 
 N. R. R. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46 ; V. C. R. R. v. Sanger, 15 Grat. 236 ; P. & 
 R. R. R. v. Derby, 14 How. 468 ; Steamboat New World v. King, 16 Id. 469 ; 
 N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 ; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill 406 ; The 
 State v. B. & O. R. R., 24 Md. 84 ; McElroy v. N. & L. R. R., 4 Cash. 400 ; 
 Schopman v. B. &. W. R. R., 9 Id. 24 ; Knight v. P.. S. & P. R. R., 57 Me. 202 '; 
 Fairchild v. C. S. Co., 13 Cal. 604; Jamison v. St. J. & S. C. R R., 55 Cal. 593,' 
 3 Am & Eng, R. R. Cas. 350 ; P. C. & St. L. R. R. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 462, 
 3 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 457; c/. L. C. Ry. v. Weams, 80 Ky. 420, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 399. 
 1 9 Mete. 1.
 
 234 RAILWAYS NOT INSURERS. 
 
 examination vould not disclose, and which could not be 
 guarded against by the exercise of a sound judgment 
 and the most vigilant oversight, then the proprietor is 
 not liable for the injury, but the misfortune must be 
 borne by the sufferer as one of that class of injuries for 
 which the law can afford no redress in the form of a 
 pecuniary recompense." In Readhead v. Midland By., 1 
 the plaintiff, a passenger by the defendant's line, was 
 injured by the derailment of the carriage in which he 
 was riding, caused by the breaking of the tire of a 
 wheel from a hidden flaw, which flaw it was proven was 
 not possible of discovery by the exercise of the greatest 
 care, either on the part of the railway company or of 
 the manufacturer of the wheel. The judge left it to the 
 jury to say whether on the evidence they were satisfied 
 that the injury to the plaintiff was due to the negligence 
 of the defendants. The jury found for the defendants, 
 and judgment was entered on the verdict for them, and 
 affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber on the ground that 
 carriers of passengers are not answerable as insurers for 
 the safety of their vehicles and appliances, but that 
 they are liable only for such accidents as may happen 
 from any defect therein which might have been pre- 
 vented by the exercise of due care on their part, and 
 that " the duty to take due care, however widely con- 
 sidered or however rigorously enforced, will not sub- 
 ject the defendants to the plain injustice of being com- 
 pelled by the law to make reparation for a disaster 
 arising from a latent defect in the machinery which 
 they are obliged to use, which no human skill or care 
 could either have prevented or detected." Blackburn, 
 J., dissented in the court below, conceding that the rule 
 in Coggs v. Bernard was not applicable, and that the 
 
 1 L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, 4 Id. 379.
 
 RAILWAYS NOT INSURERS. 235 
 
 carrier of passengers is not an insurer, but holding that 
 the obligation of the carrier to provide a vehicle reason- 
 ably fit for the journey is absolute, and that a failure to 
 fulfill that obligation is sufficient to make hirn liable 
 for all the consequences, for the reason that the vehicle 
 being supplied and selected by the carrier, the passenger 
 having no means of examining the carriage and no voice 
 in its selection, there is an implied warranty that the 
 carriage is reasonably fit. In Alden v. N. Y. C. R. R., 1 
 the Court of Appeals of New York took the same view 
 as that expressed by Blackburn, J., but the later cases 
 in New York have followed the rule as laid down by 
 the Court of Exchequer Chamber. In Meier v. P. R. 
 R., 2 the injury resulted from a hidden flaw in the axle, 
 and judgment for the defendant was affirmed by the 
 Supreme Court, Agnew, J., saying : " Absolute liability 
 requires absolute perfection in machinery in all respects, 
 which is impossible. The utmost which human knowl- 
 edge, human skill, and human foresight and care can 
 provide is all that in reason can be required. To ask 
 more is to prohibit the running of railways unless they 
 possess a capital and surplus which will enable them 
 to add a new element to their business, that of in- 
 surers." 3 
 
 238. It is, therefore, the duty of the railway to ex- 
 ercise care in the provision of good and sufficient mate- 
 rial, to employ skilled engineers and contractors, and to 
 follow correct methods in the original construction, in- 
 spection, and subsequent maintenance in repair of its 
 
 1 26 N. Y. 102. 2 04 Pcnna. St. 225. 
 
 3 See also Gilson v. J. C. H. Ry., 76 Mo. 282, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 132 ; 
 Smith v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 42 Wise. 520 ; De Graff v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 76 Id. L25; McPadden v. N. Y. C. R. R., 44 Id. 478; Caldwell v. N. J. S. 
 Co., 47 Id. 290; Carroll v. S. J. R. R., 58 Id. 126; G. R. & I. R. R. v. Boyd, 
 65 Ind. 526 ; Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. 340; Sawyer t. H. & St. J. R. R., 37 
 Id. 240.
 
 236 EXTENT OF RAILWAY'S DUTY. 
 
 station approaches, station buildings, station platforms, 
 and of the embankments, bridges, cuttings, tunnels, 
 levels, roadbed, rails, and switches, which constitute its 
 line, and of the engines and cars which it uses in the 
 transportation of its passengers ; and it is also the duty 
 of the railway to adopt and put into operation a system 
 for the operation of its line, to make and enforce reason- 
 able rules and regulations for the safety of its passengers, 
 to employ a sufficient number of servants, to select its 
 servants carefully, to make and enforce regulations for 
 their guidance, and to use in the operation of its line 
 every reasonable precaution for the safe transportation 
 of its passengers. A failure of duty in any of these 
 respects will render the railway liable ; thus, where a 
 bridge or an embankment has broken down, its fall 
 must, in the absence of vis major, have resulted from 
 want of skill on the part of the engineer who planned 
 it, or on the part of the contractor who built it, or from 
 a failure to adopt the best method of construction or a 
 neglect to use materials of adequate strength, or from a 
 failure to maintain the bridge or embankment in a safe 
 condition. To relieve the railway from responsibility 
 for such an accident, it must appear that there was no 
 negligence in any one of these respects, and it is not 
 enough to show that the bridge was planned by a com- 
 petent engineer; 1 thus, in Grote v. C. & H. By., 2 where 
 a passenger was injured by the fall of a bridge, which 
 had been built by a competent engineer engaged by the 
 defendant, at the trial, Williams, J., directed the jury 
 " that the question was whether the bridge was con- 
 structed and maintained with sufficient care and skill 
 and of reasonably proper strength with regard to the 
 
 1 Grote v. C. & H. Ry., 2 Ex. 251 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 Penna. 
 Rt. 351, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 407. 
 1 2 Ex. 251.
 
 DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. 237 
 
 purpose for which it was made, and that if they should 
 think not, and that the accident was owing to any such 
 deficiency, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover." 
 A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a rule for 
 a new trial upon the ground of misdirection was refused, 
 Pollock, C. B., holding the test of freedom from liability 
 to be whether the defendant had employed a person 
 " fully competent to the work, and the best method is 
 adopted and the best materials are used," and adding : 
 " it cannot be contended that the defendants are not 
 responsible for the accident merely on the ground that 
 " they have employed a competent person to construct 
 the bridge." 
 
 239. The same principles are applicable in cases where 
 injury to a passenger results from the failure of any 
 means of transportation, whether resulting from original 
 defects in construction or from subsequent wear and tear 
 in operation. 1 While the railway has a right to assume 
 that rolling stock bought from a reputable manufacturer 
 is reasonably sufficient, and is not to be held liable for 
 latent defects in such rolling stock, which could not have 
 been discovered by the railway or by the manufacturer, 
 by any reasonable and practicable means of inspection, 2 
 yet where injury to a passenger results from an imper- 
 fection in the line, or in the means of transportation, 
 due to the negligence of the party who built the same 
 and furnished it to the railway, the railway is liable 
 therefor. 3 
 
 240. Upon the principle pointed out in Mersey Docks 
 Trustees v. Gibbs, 4 if knowledge of the existence of a 
 
 1 Manser v. E. C. Ry., 3 L. T. N. 8. 585. 
 
 * G. B. & I. R. R. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537. 
 
 8 Grote v. C. & H. Ry., 2 Ex. 251 ; Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 501 ; 
 Hegeraan v. W. R. Corporation, 13 N. Y. 9 ; Readhead v. M. Ry., L. R. 4 Q. 
 B. 379 ; Burns v. C. & Y. Ry., 13 C. L. (N. S.) 543. 
 
 * L. R. 1 H. L. 93.
 
 238 DUTY OF INSPECTION. 
 
 cause of mischief makes the railway responsible for the 
 injury it occasions, it will be equally responsible when, 
 by its negligence, the existence of that cause of mischief 
 is not known to it, and, of course, in such a case, the 
 negligence of the superintending officials of a railway 
 must be held to be negligence upon the part of the 
 railway. 
 
 241. It is the duty of the railway to vigilantly inspect 
 its line and buildings, and, as has been shown, the fact 
 that an injury was immediately caused by an act of God, 
 will not relieve the railway, if that injury could have 
 been guarded against by the exercise of care on the part 
 of the railway. It is also the duty of the railway, not 
 only to test its machinery and appliances before they 
 are put into use, but also to test them from time to time 
 subsequently, in order that it may be known if they are 
 deteriorating by wear and tear. 1 The criterion of neg- 
 ligence in such cases is, not whether the particular de- 
 fect, which was the cause of the injury, could possibly 
 have been detected by the use of scientific means of in- 
 vestigation, but whether the defect ought to* have been 
 observed practically and by the use of ordinary and 
 reasonable care. 2 So in the case of cars received by the 
 railway from another line for transportation over its 
 line, the duty of the railway requires it to subject such 
 cars to as thorough an inspection as the necessary exi- 
 gencies of the traffic permit ; thus, in Richardson v. G. 
 E. By. 3 the plaintiff, a passenger on the defendant's 
 line, had been injured by a collision caused by the break- 
 ing of the axle of a coal truck, resulting from a crack 
 which could have been discovered if the axle had been 
 
 1 Manser v. E. C. By., 3 L. T. N. S. 585 ; T. & St. L. R. R. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 
 323, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 475. 
 
 2 Stokes v. E. C. Ry., 2 F. & F. 691 ; Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 9 
 Fed. Rep. 877, 20 Blatch. 338. 
 
 3 I,. R. 10 C. P. 486, 1 C. P. D. 342.
 
 DUTY OF INSPECTION. 239 
 
 scraped clean of dirt, and had been subjected to a minute 
 examination. The line of the Midland Railway con- 
 nected with the defendant's line at Peterborough, and 
 under a statute, 1 the defendants were bound to receive 
 and forward carriages and trucks delivered to them by 
 the Midland Company, and twenty to thirty thousand 
 of such trucks were received at that junction weekly and 
 forwarded. When this particular truck was brought 
 on the defendant's line at Peterborough certain defects, 
 in no way connected, however, with the defect which 
 ultimately caused the accident, were perceptible, and 
 such of the repairs as could be made were made. The 
 exigencies of traffic prevented the defendant from mi- 
 nutely examining the axle. The jury found specially 
 that the defect which caused the accident was discover- 
 able by careful examination, that it was not the duty of 
 the defendants to examine the axle, but that it was their 
 duty to require from the wagon company some strict 
 assurance that it had been thoroughly examined and 
 repaired. The judge directed a verdict for the defend- 
 ants, but the Court of Exchequer entered judgment for 
 the plaintiff upon the ground that the defendants were 
 negligent in not ascertaining that proper examination 
 had been made before the truck was allowed to proceed. 
 In the Court of Appeal, however, this judgment was re- 
 versed upon the ground that the defendants were not 
 bound to do more than had been done in the way of ex- 
 amining the truck under the circumstances of the case, 
 and that as the defects which were discovered were un- 
 connected with the particular defect causing the accident, 
 there was nothing to impose upon the defendants the 
 duty of making a more minute examination than the 
 exigencies of the traffic permitted. 
 
 242. The railway is, therefore, liable for negligence 
 
 1 Sec. 92 of 8 and 9 Vict. chap. 20.
 
 240 DUTY OF MAINTENANCE. 
 
 in the original construction, or subsequent maintenance 
 of its roadway, 1 or of its rails, 2 or of its ties, 3 or of its 
 bridges, 4 or of its embankments, 5 or of its level crossings 
 of other lines, 6 or of its switches, 7 or of its rolling stock, 
 including cars, 8 car axles, 9 car brakes, 10 car wheels, 11 and 
 locomotives. 12 
 
 243. The duty of the railway extends to all its means 
 of transport, whether the particular means which proves. 
 to be deficient be, or be not, at the time of the injury, 
 
 1 G. W. Ky. v. Braid, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 101 ; P., C. & St. L. R. K. v. Wil- 
 liams, 74 Ind. 462 ; O'Donnell v. A. V. R. E., 59 Penna. St. 259 ; V. C. R. R. v. 
 Sanger, 15 Gratt. 230 ; Mattison v. N. Y. C. R. R., 35 N. Y. 487 ; P., P. & J. 
 R. R. v. Reynolds, 88 111. 418. 
 
 2 Brignoli v. C. & G. E. R. R., 4 Daly 182; M. S. & N. J. R. R. v. Lantz, 
 29 Ind. 528 ; C, C, C. & I. Ry. v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 377 ; George v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 34 Ark. 613, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 2y4 ; McPadden v. N. Y. C. R. R., 44 N. Y. 478 ; Reed v. N. Y. C. R. R., 56 
 Barb. 493. 
 
 3 P., C & St. L. R. R. v. Thompson, 56 111. 138 ; T. & P. R. R. v. Hardin, 62 
 Tex. 367, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 460. 
 
 * Grote v. C. & H. Ry., 2 Ex. 251 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Conroy, 68 111. 560 ; 
 Oliver v. N. Y. & E. R. R., 1 Edm. S. C. 589 ; Locke v. S. C. & P. Ry., 46 Iowa 
 109 ; K. P. Ry. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442 ; Jamison v. St. J. & S. C. R. R., 55 Cab 
 593, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 350 ; B. S. O. & B. R. R. v. Rainbolt, 99 Ind. 551, 
 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 466 ; D. & W. R. R. i>. Spicker, 61 Tex. 427, 21 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 160. 
 
 6 Henley v. H. R. R., 1 Edm. S. C. 359 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Anderson, 94 Penna. 
 St. 351 ; I. & G. N. R. R. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 343. 
 
 6 Graham v. G. W. Ry., 41 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 324. 
 
 7 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. v. Daugherty, 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 437 ; P. & R. I. R. R. v. Lane, 83 111. 449 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Worthington, 21 
 Md. 275 ; McElroy v. N. & L. R. R., 4 Cush. 400 ; Smith v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 
 19 N. Y. 227 ; Caswell v. B. & W. R. R., 98 Mass. 194. 
 
 8 Penna. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 225 ; C, C, C. & 
 I. R. R. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461. 
 
 9 Hegeman v. W. R. R, 13 N. Y. 9 ; Alden v. N. Y. C. R. R., 26 N. Y. 102 ; 
 McPadden v. Same, 44 Id. 478 ; G. R. & I. R. R. v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 525 ; Richard- 
 son v. G. E. Ry., L. R. 10 C. P. 486, 1 C. P. D. 342. 
 
 10 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. v. Daugherty, 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 
 437 ; Costello v. S. & R. R. R., 65 Barb. 92. 
 
 11 T. W. & W. R. R. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80 ; Readhead v. M. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 412, 4 Id. 379 ; Meier v. P. K. R., 64 Penna. St. 225. 
 
 u Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 20 Blatcf. 338 ; Manser v. E. C. Ry, 
 3 L. T. N. J. 585.
 
 DUTY AS TO MEANS OF TRANSPORT. 241 
 
 under the management of the railway, or of a third 
 party ; * thus in John v. Bacon, 2 the defendant having 
 contracted to carry the plaintiff by steamer from Mil- 
 ford Haven to Liverpool, the mode of transit provided 
 being that passengers should go on board of a hulk, 
 owned by a third party, and moored in the harbor of 
 Milford Haven, and thence embark on the steamer when 
 it should stop en route from Haverford West. The 
 plaintiff, in descending from the hulk to the steamer, 
 fell into a hatchway in the hulk, negligently left un- 
 guarded, and after a verdict for the plaintiff a rule for 
 a new trial was discharged, the ground of decision being 
 that the carrier was answerable for any inadequacy in 
 the means of transit resulting from negligence on his 
 own part, or on the part of the person providing the 
 particular means whose defective condition was the cause 
 of injury to the passenger. So in Knight v. P. S. & P 
 P. P., 3 a railway which had contracted to carry a pas 
 senger part way by train and part way by steamboat, 
 was held liable to him for injuries caused by a failure 
 to maintain in good repair the wharf over which th<= 
 passenger was compelled to pass in going from the train 
 to the steamboat. So in V. & M. P. R. v. Howe, 4 the 
 wreck of a freight train having stopped the progress of 
 a passenger train at night, the passengers were directed 
 by the railway's servants to leave their train and tc 
 walk to another train beyond the wreck, crossing on a 
 plank over a ditch, there being no light at the plank, 
 and no notice being given of the approach to it, and the 
 plaintiff in so doing fell and was injured, and the rail- 
 way was held liable therefor. 5 So in Buffett v. T. & B. 
 
 1 John v. Bacon, L. R. 5 C. P. 437 ; Knight v. P. S. & P. R. R., 56 Me. 227 : 
 V. & M. R. It. v. Howe, 52 Miss. 202 ; Jamison v. St. J. & S. C. R. R., 55 Cal. 
 593, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 350. 
 
 1 L. R 5 C. P. 437. ' 56 Me 234. 4 52 Miss. 202. 
 
 6 Upon the same principle it was held in Northrup v. Ry. Pass. Assurance 
 16
 
 212 SLEEPING-CARS, ETC. 
 
 R. R., 1 a railway was held liable to a passenger for in- 
 juries received in a railway omnibus while on his way 
 to the railway station, and in N. J. R. R. v. Palmer, 2 a 
 New Jersey railway was held liable for injuries re- 
 ceived by a passenger while crossing on a ferry boat 
 from New York to Jersey City. 
 
 244. Railways are also liable for injuries received by 
 their passengers in sleeping-cars and other cars run by 
 the railway as a part of its train, although such cars 
 may be owned and manned by an independent corpora- 
 tion, and although the passenger may have specially 
 contracted with that independent corporation for the 
 privilege of riding in such car. Thus, in Penna. Co. v. 
 Roy, 3 the plaintiff, having purchased a ticket from the 
 defendant, and become a passenger on its line, also pur- 
 chased a ticket from the Pullman Palace Car Co., and 
 having taken a seat in a car of the latter company, 
 which was run as part of a train of the defendant, was 
 injured by the falling of a berth in the car, resulting 
 either from a defective construction of the car, or from 
 negligence on the part of the servants in charge of the 
 car. Judgment upon a verdict for the plaintiff' was re- 
 versed for an error in the court below in admitting ir- 
 relevant evidence ; but the liability of the defendant to 
 the plaintiff was thus clearly stated by Harlan, J. : " the 
 duty of the railroad company was to convey the passen- 
 ger over its line. In performing that duty, it could not, 
 consistently with the law and the obligations arising out 
 of the nature of its business, use cars or vehicles whose 
 inadequacy or insufficiency, for safe conveyance, was 
 
 Co., 43 N. Y. 516, that the personal representatives of a person injured in the 
 course of a journey by a connecting railway and steamboat line, by a fall on a 
 9lippery sidewalk while walking from steamboat to train, could recover under 
 a policy stipulating for indemnity against injury " when caused by any accident 
 while travelling by public conveyances, etc." 
 
 1 40 27- Y. 168. » 4 /room (N. 1.) 90. 3 J 02 U. S. 451.
 
 SLEEPING-CAES, ETC. 243 
 
 discoverable upon the most careful and thorough ex- 
 amination. If it chose to make no such examination, 
 
 j 
 
 or to cause it to be made ; if it elected to reserve or ex- ' 
 ercise no such control or right of inspection, from time 
 to time, of the sleeping-cars which it used in convey- 
 ing passengers, as it should exercise over its own cars, 
 it was chargeable with negligence or failure of duty. 
 The law will conclusively presume that the conductor 
 and porter, assigned by the Pullman Palace Car Com- 
 pany to the control of the interior arrangements of the 
 sleeping-car in which Hoy was riding when injured, ex- 
 ercised such control with the assent of the railroad 
 company. For the purposes of the contract under 
 which the railroad company undertook to carry Roy 
 over its line, and, in view of its obligation to use only 
 cars that were adequate for safe conveyance, the sleep- 
 ing-car company, its conductor, and porter, were, in law, 
 the servants and employes of the railroad company. 
 Their negligence, or the negligence of either of them, 
 as to any matters involving the safety or security of 
 passengers while being conveyed, was the negligence of 
 the railroad company. The law will not permit a rail- 
 road company, engaged in the business of carrying per- 
 sons for hire, through any device or arrangement with 
 a sleeping-car company whose cars are used by the 
 railroad company, and constitute a part of its train, to 
 evade the duty of providing proper means for the safe 
 conveyance of those whom it has agreed to convey." 1 
 So, in Thorpe v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 2 a passenger, 
 being unable to obtain a seat in any car of the train 
 other than the drawing-room car (which was not owned 
 nor manned by the railway), seated himself in that car, 
 
 1 Pee also C. C, C. & I. K. R. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461, 8 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 371 ; Kinsley v. L. S. & M. S. R. R, 125 Mass. 54. 
 
 * 76 N. Y. 402.
 
 244 IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 
 
 and, having refused to pay the extra fare demanded for 
 a seat in that car, he was assaulted by the porter in 
 charge of that car, and the railway was held liable to 
 the passenger. 
 
 VI. THE DUTY OF THE RAILWAY AS TO THE ADOPTION 
 OF IMPROVED APPLIANCES AND METHODS OF OPERA- 
 TION. 
 
 The duty of the railway to its passengers requires it to adopt such im- 
 proved appliances and methods of operation as, having been tested 
 and found to materially contribute to the safety of railway operations, 
 are in practical use, and can be in fact adopted. 
 
 - 245. The standard of railway efficiency changes from 
 day to day with the progress of discoveries in science 
 and inventions in the arts, and that system and those 
 appliances of operation, whose adoption and application 
 a few years ago were regarded as the full performance 
 of the railway's duty to its passengers would be, to-day, 
 considered, in the practice of well-managed railways, to 
 fall far short of an adequate performance of that duty. 
 It is obviously within the scope of treatises upon engi- 
 neering and upon railway operation, and not within the 
 scope of a law book, to prescribe the particular system 
 and appliances which, according to the standard of to- 
 day, ought to be enforced and used by railways, but it 
 may be proper to notice here certain practical points 
 which railway experience has, up to this time, estab- 
 lished. The first point is the necessity of an intelligent 
 financial administration based upon sound principles, 
 for a railway whieh is under the pressure of chronic 
 pecuniary embarrassment cannot be as efficiently oper- 
 ated as one whose earnings exceed its necessary dis- 
 bursements for operating expenses, maintenance of line 
 and rolling stock, and payment of interest upon funded 
 debt, to say nothing of dividends to shareholders. If
 
 IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 245 
 
 its embarrassments are so great as to involve the creation 
 of a floating debt, incurred for operating expenses, and 
 especially if its employes are not promptly and ade- 
 quately paid, it is obvious that the due maintenance of 
 line and rolling stock will be neglected, and that its 
 service will be disorganized. The next point is the 
 necessity of the organization of the service of the line on 
 a comprehensive system. It needs no argument to show 
 that the employes of a railway which undertakes to 
 move a large volume of traffic are so many in number, 
 and their duties are so various, and those duties require, 
 for their right performance, so much intelligence and 
 concentration of purpose that the employes must not. 
 only be adequately remunerated, and have the added 
 stimulus of anticipated promotion as a reward for faith- 
 ful service, and of prompt punishment for their non- 
 performance of duty, but they must also be organized, 
 trained, subjected to discipline, and controlled in their 
 action by wisely framed regulations which will, as far 
 as possible, minimize the exercise of individual discretion 
 by subordinates. The next point is that a thorough 
 and vigilant inspection of the line and a free use of the 
 telegraph in operating it, especially if the block system 
 be adopted and enforced, will, to a great extent, diminish 
 the danger of collision on the line with either moving 
 or stationary obstructions other than such as necessarily 
 result from want of fencing and the frequency of grade 
 crossings; and automatic train brakes will, if obstruc- 
 tions be observed, enable the train to be brought to a 
 speedy stop, and the modern increased solidity of the 
 cars, and their close and rigid coupling will, if the obstruc- 
 tion be met, prevent the breaking up or telescoping of 
 the cars. 1 There are many other points that might be 
 
 1 Railway science has not yet solved the problem of heating cars in such a 
 manner as to avoid the danger from fire in cases of derailment.
 
 2-16 IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 
 
 noted, such as the use of guard rails on bridges and em- 
 bankments ; the flooring of bridges, so as to prevent the 
 falling of derailed engines or cars upon the trusses of 
 the bridge ; the connection of sidings with the main line 
 tracks so that a train must back in order to go upon the 
 siding ; the locking of sidings so that a train cannot be 
 heedlessly moved from the siding to the line ; the mark- 
 ing of ends of trains by flags and lights ; the guarding of 
 switches by automatic targets and lights, and the oper- 
 ation of the line upon the block system, and by the use 
 of interlocking signals whose normal condition is 
 danger, and which can only be moved to safety by levers 
 worked in the block houses. 1 Yet it cannot be laid 
 down as a general rule of law that the duty of every 
 railway to its passengers requires it to adopt in its en- 
 tirety the system of operation and the appliances to 
 which reference has been made, or any other system or 
 appliances, but it can only be said, that if it be proven 
 that any particular appliance or method having been 
 tested and found to materially contribute to the safety 
 of railway operations, is in practical use, could have 
 been adopted by the railway, and if adopted would have 
 prevented the injury to the plaintiff, it is then for the 
 jury to determine, whether or not the failure to adopt 
 that particular appliance or method was, under all the 
 circumstances of the case, negligence upon the part of 
 the railway. 2 The rule on this subject is well illustrated 
 
 1 See Barry's " Railway Appliances ;" Adam's " Notes on Railroad Accidents." 
 3 Freemantle v. L. & N. W. Ry., 10 C. B. N. S. 95, 100 E. C. L.; Ford v. L. 
 
 & S. W. Ry., 2 F. & F. 730 ; Hegeman v. Western R. R. Corporation, 13 N. Y. 
 
 9 ; Smith v. N. Y. & II. Ry., 19 Id. 127 ; Brown v. N. Y. C. Ry., 34 Id. 404 ; 
 
 Taylor v. Ry., 48 N. II. 304 ; B. & O. Ry. v. State, 29 Md. 252, Id. 420 ; Warren 
 
 v. Fitchburg Ry., 8 Allen 227 ; LeBaron v. East Boston Ferry Co., 11 Id. 312; 
 
 Meier v. P. E. R., 64 Penna. St. 225 ; F. & B. Turnpike Co. v. P. & T. R. R., 54 
 
 Id. 345 ; L. <fc B. R. R. v. Doak, 52 Id. 379 ; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. v. 
 nerty, 11 W. N. C. 437; I. & G. N. Ry. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 3 Am. & 
 
 Rng. R. R'. Cas. 343 ; Bowen v. N. Y. C. R.R.,18 N.Y.40* ; K. C. R.R. v. Thomas,
 
 IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 247 
 
 by the case of Freemantle v. L. & N. W. Ry., 1 in 
 which the general obligation of the railway as to the 
 adoption of improved appliances was discussed with 
 special reference to injury to property caused by fire 
 communicated by sparks escaping from an engine. 
 There was contradictory evidence in the cause as to the 
 mode of construction of the engine, the sparks from 
 which caused the fire, as to the sufficiency of its appli- 
 ances for the prevention of the emission of sparks, and 
 as to the possibility of preventing their emission by the 
 use of appliances other than those which were used. 
 Williams, J., directed the jury that the railway "in ihe 
 construction of their engines are not only bound to em- 
 ploy all due care, and all due skill for the prevention 
 of mischief occurring to the property of others by the 
 emission of sparks or any other cause, but they are also 
 bound to avail themselves of all the discoveries which 
 science has put within their reach for that purpose, 
 provided they are such as, under the circumstances, it 
 is reasonable to require the company to adopt. For 
 example, if the danger to be avoided were insignificant, 
 or very unlikely to occur, and the remedy suggested 
 were very costly or very troublesome, or such as inter- 
 fered materially with the efficient working of the engine, 
 then you will have to say whether it could reasonably 
 be expected that the company should adopt such a 
 remedy for such an evil. On the other hand, if the 
 risk were considerable, and if the expense or trouble or 
 inconvenience of providing the remedy is not great, in 
 proportion to the risk, then you would have to say 
 whether the company could reasonably be excused from 
 
 79 Ky. 1G0, 1 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 79 ; Randall v. B. & O. R. R., 109 U. S. 
 478; Bartley v. G. R. R., 60 Ga. 182; N. & J. R. R. v. McNeil, 61 Miss. 434, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 518. 
 1 10 C. B. N. S. 95, 100 E. C. L.
 
 24S IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 
 
 availing themselves of such a remedy, because it might, 
 to some extent, be attended with cost or other disadvan- 
 tage to themselves." After a verdict for the plaintiff, a 
 rule for a new trial on the ground of misdirection was 
 refused. 
 
 246. It is said in some cases, that the duty of the 
 railway does not require it, for the sake of making- 
 travel on its road free from peril, to incur a degree of 
 expense which w r ould render the operation of its line 
 impracticable; 1 yet it may be questioned whether the 
 cost of the adoption of new appliances or modes of 
 operation, can be taken into consideration as an ele- 
 ment in determining the duty of the railway, for if 
 their adoption be necessary to the safe operation of the 
 line, the railway ought to adopt them whatever their 
 cost. 
 
 247. The extent of the application of this rule is, of 
 course, dependent on the facts of the particular case. 
 A newly constructed railway line, especially if laid out 
 through a thinly settled territory, moving but little traf- 
 fic, and running its trains at a low rate of speed, cannot 
 be expected to be either equipped or operated in precisely 
 the same manner as is necessary in the case of a rail- 
 way which moves a large volume of traffic, through a 
 settled country, and which runs its trains at a high rate 
 of speed. It may well be held that the last-mentioned 
 railway is negligent if it fails to adopt every appliance 
 and every method of operation which has been proved 
 to conduce to the safety of passengers ; while in the 
 case of the first-mentioned railway, its appliances and 
 methods of operation need only be such as the experi- 
 ence of well-managed railways has shown to be essential 
 to the safe operation of such a line. If any more strin- 
 
 1 P., C. & St. L. R. R. v. Thompson, 56 111. 138 ; K. C. R. R. v. Thomas, 79 
 Ky. 160, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79.
 
 IMPROVED APPLIANCES. 249 
 
 gent rule than this is enforced, all railways must either 
 become insurers of the safety of their passengers or cease 
 their operations. If adequate tests of trial and use 
 have shown that any particular appliance or method of 
 operation will materially tend to secure the safety of 
 passengers, it may well be held that the failure to adopt 
 it is negligence on the part of the railway. But rail- 
 ways are not to be expected to avail themselves of every 
 new invention that is brought to their notice. The 
 suggested improvement must have passed beyond the 
 stage of experiment, and its theoretical sufficiency must 
 have received the seal of a recognized practical effi- 
 ciency before a railway can be held negligent for failing 
 to adopt it. While on the one hand the evidence of 
 this recognition cannot be found in the fact that one or 
 even some railways have adopted the particular appli- 
 ance, so, on the other hand, the fact that other railways 
 have not adopted it is not conclusive proof that it ought 
 not to have been adopted in the particular case ; and 
 the test in any such case is, whether or not the par- 
 ticular appliance is of recognized efficacy, and, under 
 like conditions, in general use by well-managed rail- 
 ways. In the application of these principles it is to be 
 borne in mind, that, in order to hold the railway liable 
 for negligence in failing to adopt and put into practical 
 operation any specific appliance or method of operation, 
 it must be shown that the adoption of the particular 
 appliance or method of operation would have prevented 
 the injury to the plaintiff, and that a well-managed 
 railway would, having regard to the situation of the 
 particular railway and the volume of traffic which it 
 moved, have adopted the particular appliance.
 
 250 RAILWAY REGULATIONS. 
 
 VII. RAILWAY REGULATIONS AS AFFECTING PASSENGERS. 
 
 248. It is both the right and the duty of the railway 
 to make regulations for the safe conduct of its business, 
 but those regulations must be reasonable in themselves 
 and must be so published, that all persons who are to 
 be affected thereby, may have an opportunity of learn- 
 ing the existence and effect of such regulations. 1 Where 
 the regulations are, in themselves, reasonable, and have 
 been properly published, the passenger is bound to 
 inform himself as to their effect, and he must conform 
 thereto; 2 thus, in Sullivan v. P. & R. R. R., 3 Woodward, 
 J., said, the passenger's " consent is implied to all the 
 company's reasonable rules and regulations for entering, 
 occupying, and leaving their cars, and if injury befall 
 him by reason of his disregard of regulations which are 
 necessary to the conduct of the business, the company 
 are not liable in damages, even though the negligence 
 of their servants concurred with his own negligence in 
 producing the mischief." 
 
 249. There is some conflict in the cases upon the 
 question as to the determination of the reasonableness 
 of any particular regulation by the court or by the jury. 
 In some cases 4 it is held, that it is for the court 
 to determine whether any particular regulation is rea- 
 sonable. In other cases it is held, that the jury is the 
 appropriate tribunal for the determination of that ques- 
 
 1 McDonald v. C. & N. W. R. R., 26 Iowa 124 ; Sullivan v. P. & R. R. R., 
 30 Penna. St. 238 ; P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Id. 326 ; P. R, R. v. McClurg, 56 Id. 
 294 ; Powell v. P. R. R., 32 Id. 414 ; C. R. R. v. Green, 86 Id. 421 ; O'Donnell 
 v. A. V. R. R-, 59 Id. 239 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Id. 139 ; B. & M. R. R. v. 
 Rose, 11 Neb. 177, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253. 
 
 2 Britton v. A. & C. A. L. Ry., 88 N. C. 536, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 391 ; 
 B. & M. R. R. v. Rose, 11 Neb. 177, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253. 
 
 s 30 Penna. St. 238. 
 
 * Ilibbard v. N. Y. & E. R. R., 15 N. Y. 455 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Fleming, 
 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 347.
 
 RAILWAY REGULATIONS. 251 
 
 tion. 1 The last cited cases would seem to enunciate the 
 sounder doctrine, especially in cases where the railway- 
 has not been by statute empowered to impose such reg- 
 ulations upon its passengers, for there is no analogy 
 between railway regulations as affecting passengers, who 
 are strangers to the railway corporation and ordinary 
 corporate by-laws as affecting members of the corpora- 
 tion. Whether or not any particular railway regula- 
 tion, as affecting the action of a passenger, imposes a 
 proper restriction upon that passenger's independence 
 of action, can only be determined upon a consideration 
 of the circumstances of the particular case, and for such 
 a consideration the jury, rather than the judge, would 
 seem to be the proper tribunal. The following regula- 
 tions have been held to be reasonable : requiring pas- 
 sengers to enter the cars only from the station plat- 
 form ; 2 prescribing the place and manner of leaving the 
 cars; 3 forbidding passengers to ride in baggage cars, 
 etc.; 4 forbidding passengers from putting their arms 
 out of car windows ; 6 forbidding passengers to ride on 
 platforms of cars ; 6 providing that specified trains shall 
 not stop at particular stations ; 7 forbidding passengers 
 to ride on freight trains ; 8 permitting passengers to ride 
 on freight trains only upon certain specified conditions. ,J 
 
 1 Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumner 221 ; State v. Overton, 4 Zab. 435 ; Bass v. 
 C. & N. W. Ry., 36 Wise. 450 ; Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520. 
 
 * McDonald v. C. & N. W. R. R., 26 Iowa 124. 
 3 P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 326. 
 
 * P. R. R. v. Langdon, 92 Penna. St. 21 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Id. 139. 
 6 P. & C. R. R. v. McClurg, 56 Penna. St. 294. 
 
 6 Wills v. L. & B. R. R., 1 29 Mass. 351 ; A. G. S. Ry. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 194. 
 
 7 Trollinger v. E. T., V. & G. R. R., 11 Tenn. 533; Beauchamp v. I. & G. 
 N. Ry., 56 Tex. 239. 
 
 8 Murch v. C. R. R., 29 N. H. 9. 
 
 9 B. & M. R. R. v. Rose, 11 Neb. 177, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 253 ; I. & 
 St. L. R. R. v. Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 467 ; Arnold v. 
 I. C. R. R., 83 111. 273 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Flagg, 43 Id. 364 ; C, C. & C. R. R. v. 
 Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 457 ; Law v. I. C. R. R., 32 Iowa 534.
 
 252 RAILWAY REGULATIONS. 
 
 250. It is the duty of a railway to enforce its regula 
 tions ; * and railway servants, by permitting the passen- 
 gers to disobey regulations, will make the railway liable 
 for injuries caused to passengers by such disobedience; 
 but the servant's dispensing jjower does not apply to 
 regulations which forbid a passenger to occupy a posi- 
 tion of danger. Thus, in P. R. R. v. Langdon, 2 where 
 the plaintiff's decedent had been injured while riding 
 in the baggage car, in violation of the company's rules, 
 a reasonable view was taken as to the conductor's dis- 
 pensing power, Paxson, J., distinguishing between rules 
 which have regard to the convenience of the railway, 
 others to the comfort of the passenger, and yet others to 
 the safety of the passenger, and holding that a conduc- 
 tor cannot, in violation of a known rule of the railway, 
 license a passenger to occupy a place of danger so as to 
 make the railway responsible. Of course that disobe- 
 dience upon the part of the passenger to the railway's 
 regulations, which is to relieve the latter from the con- 
 sequences of the negligence of its servants, must be a 
 disobedience which is a proximate cause of his injury. 
 Thus, in P. P. P. v. Langdon, 3 the passenger was riding 
 in the baggage car, and was killed by reason of being 
 there ; while in L. & B. P. P. v. Chenewith, 4 the plain- 
 tiff's freight car was, in violation of the rules, attached 
 to a passenger train, but the plaintiff was injured by 
 reason of the negligence of the engine-driver in run- 
 ning over a cow upon the track. And in Creed v. P. 
 R. P., 5 a passenger, in violation of rules, was riding in 
 a caboose attached to a mixed freight and passenger 
 
 1 Britton v. A. & C A L. P.*., 88 N. C. 536, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 391. 
 
 7 92 Penna. St. 21. 3 92 Penna. St. 21. 
 
 4 52 Id. 382. & 86 Id. 139.
 
 STATIONS. 253 
 
 train, but the position of the passenger was not the 
 cause of his injury. 
 
 VIII. STATION APPROACHES, PLATFORMS, AND BUILDINGS. 
 
 251. The railway is liable for negligence in its con- 
 struction of, or failure to repair, its station approaches. 1 
 Thus, in Longmore v. G. W. Ry., 2 the plaintiff's dece- 
 dent, while on his way to the defendant's booking office 
 at a station on a moonlight night, in crossing a wooden 
 bridge over the defendant's line, fell through an aper- 
 ture in the side railing and was killed, and the defend- 
 ant was held liable, upon the ground that the defect was 
 not patent, and that it was for the jury to determine 
 whether the bridge was reasonably safe. So, in Burgess 
 v. Gr. W. Ry., 3 the plaintiff, desiring refreshments, hav- 
 ing alighted at a station where he was to change cars 
 after dark, and the surroundings of the station not being 
 lit, procured a porter with a lantern to show the way to 
 a public house. While there he heard a train bell ring, 
 and, hurrying back by the most direct line to the train, 
 and mistaking the engine light for that of the station, 
 fell into a ditch on the defendant's premises and was 
 injured. After verdict for the plaintiff, a rule for a new 
 trial was refused. The railway is also liable for the 
 reasonable sufficiency of the approaches to a telegraph 
 office at a station. 4 
 
 1 Burgess v. G. W. Ry., 6 C. B. N. S. 923, 95 E. C. L. ; Hulbert v. N. Y. C. 
 R. R., 40 N. Y. 145; C. & I. C. R. R. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408; Bennett v. 
 L. & N. R. R., 102 U. S. 577 ; Hart wig v. C & N. W. Ry., 49 Wise. 3 "8, 1 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 65 ; Tobin v. P. S. & P. R. R. 59 Me. 183 ; Forsyth v. 
 
 B. & A. R. R., 103 Mass. 510; Dillaye v. N. Y. C. R. R., 56 Barb. 30; Hoff- 
 mann v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 75 N. Y. 605 ; C. & N. R. R. v. Fillmore, 57 
 111. 265 ; Quimby v. B. & M. R. R., 69 Me. 340 ; Longmore v. G. W. Ry., 19 
 
 C. B. N. S. 183, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 * 19 C. B. N. S. 183, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 8 6 C. B. N. S. 923, 95 E. C. L. 
 
 « Clussman v. L. I. R. R., 73 N. Y. 606.
 
 254 STATION PLATFORMS. 
 
 252. It is the duty of the railway to provide, at its 
 stations, reasonable accommodations for waiting passen- 
 gers ; and the railway is, therefore, liable for negligence 
 with regard to its station buildings, 1 urinals, 2 and station 
 platforms. 3 The railway is also liable for negligence in 
 permitting snow and ice to remain on its station plat- 
 forms. 4 The railway is also liable for injuries resulting 
 from its failure to adequately light its stations and plat- 
 forms. 5 Thus, in Beard v. C. & P. K. R. R., fi the rail- 
 way was held liable to a passenger injured by falling in 
 the dark down an unlit stairway on the railway's prem- 
 ises from the station platform to the public highway, the 
 stairs having been constructed by an express company, 
 but there being nothing to notify jDassengers that the 
 stairs were not intended for their use. Railways are 
 also liable for injuries to passengers caused by obstruc- 
 tions upon station platforms. Thus, in Martin v. G. N. 
 Ry., 7 the plaintiff, having arrived at the defendant's sta- 
 
 1 See the charge of Maule, J., to the jury, as reported in Martin v. G. N. 
 Ry., 16 C. B. 179, 81 E. C. L., and also the judgment of Dillon, J., in Mc- 
 Donald v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 Iowa 124 ; and the note of Judge Redfield to 
 the last cited case in 2 Redf. Ry. Cas. 532. 
 
 a McKone v. M. C. R. R., 51 Mich. 601, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 29. 
 
 s Brassell v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R., 84 N. Y. 241 ; Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 Id. 
 203, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 485 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Scates, 90 111. 586 ; 
 McDonald v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 Iowa 124, 29 Id. 170 ; St. L., L M. & S. R. R. 
 v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 198 ; P. R. R.«. Henderson, 
 51 Penna. St. 315 ; L. &N. R. R. v. Wolfe, 80 Ky. 82, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R 
 Cas. 625 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Grush, 67 111. 262 ; Liscomb v. N. J. R. R., 6 Lans. 
 75. 
 
 * Seymour v. C. B. & Q. R. R., 3 Biss. 43 ; Sheppard v. M. Ry., 20 Weekly 
 Reporter 705 ; Weston v. N. Y. E. R. R., 73 N. Y. 595. 
 
 5 Renneker v. S. C. R. R., 20 Shand (S. C.) 219 ; Stewart v. I. & G, N. Ry., 
 53 Tex. 289, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 497 ; Forsyth v. B. & A. R. R., 103 
 Mass. 510 ; Beard v. C. & P. R. R., 48 Vt. 101 ; Knight v. P. S. & P. R. R., 56 
 Me. 234; Patten v. C. & N. W. Ry., 32 Wise. 524 ; Patten v. C. & N. W. Ry., 
 36 Id. 413 ; Peniston v. C, St. L. & N. O. R. R., 34 La. An. 777 ; Buenemann 
 v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 390, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 153 ; Quaifei). 
 C. & N. W. Ry., 48 Wise. 513. 
 
 6 48 Vt. 101. 
 
 T 16 C. B. 179, 81 E. C. L.
 
 STATION PLATFOEMS. 255 
 
 tion within two minutes of the time of departure of his 
 train, in running along the line in the dark, beyond the 
 station platform, in order to reach the train, fell over a 
 switch handle and was injured. No question of con- 
 tributory negligence was raised in the cause, but the de- 
 fence was rested entirely upon the ground that the 
 plaintiff's negligence had been the exclusive cause of the 
 accident; and the jury having found a verdict for 
 the plaintiff a rule for a new trial was refused. 1 So in 
 Nicholson v. L. & Y. Ry., 2 the railway was held liable 
 to a plaintiff who had been put down from the defend- 
 ant's train at a station, and the usual place of egress 
 being blocked by another train, in attempting to pass 
 behind that other train, he stumbled over some hampers 
 which had been put out of its rear carriage, and was 
 thereby injured. 
 
 253. Railways are also liable to passengers on station 
 platforms for injuries caused by objects negligently 
 thrown or falling from passing trains, as, for instance, 
 sticks of wood, 3 or mail bags. 4 In Riley's and Maine's 
 cases, the railway was held liable because the negligent 
 acts were done by its servant, and in Carpenter's and 
 Snow's cases, the mail bags having been thrown out by 
 postal agents, who were not servants of the railway, the 
 railway was held liable because it had reason to appre- 
 hend that mail bags would be thrown from the passing 
 train on the particular platform on which the injury 
 was done, and it was, therefore, bound to guard passen- 
 gers on its platform from the danger of being struck by 
 
 1 Martin v. G. N. Ry. has been criticised by Watson, B., in Cornman v. E. d 
 By., 4 II & N. 781. 
 
 *3II. &C. 534. 
 
 ■ J. M. & I. R. R. v. Riley, 34 Ind. 568 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Maine, 67 111. 
 298. 
 
 * Snow v. F. R. R., 136 Mass. 552, 18 Am. & Eng.R R. Cas. 161 ; Carpenter 
 v. B. & A. R. R., 24 Hun 104, 97 N. Y. 494, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 331.
 
 250 STATION PLATFORMS. 
 
 mail bags. The doctrine of these cases is further illus- 
 trated by Muster v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 1 and by Wal- 
 ton v. N. Y. C. S. C. Co., 2 in the former of which cases 
 the railway was held not to be liable to a servant who, 
 while at work on a station platform, was injured by a 
 mail bag thrown from a passing train, it being proven 
 that the railway had no reason to apprehend that mail 
 bags would be thrown on that particular platform ; and 
 in the latter of which cases, the railway was held not 
 to be liable for injuries to a passenger upon a station 
 platform, caused by the act of a porter of a private car 
 in throwing, for his own convenience, upon the plat- 
 form from a passing train, a bundle of soiled clothes, 
 the porter not being a servant of the railway, and the 
 railway having no reason to apprehend that such a 
 negligent act would be done. Of course, where the 
 article which does the injury accidentally falls from a 
 passing train, or where the injured passenger is con- 
 tributorily negligent, the railway cannot be held liable 
 for his injuries. 3 Eailways are also liable to persons 
 lawfully upon their station platforms, for injuries caused 
 by the carelessness of the railway's servants in moving 
 or handling luggage. 4 Eailways are liable to pas- 
 sengers on station platforms if they are struck by a 
 passing train, any part of whose engine or cars projects 
 over the platform. 5 If there be no platform at the 
 train's stopping-place, the railway is negligent if its 
 servants do not assist passengers to alight, and if, for 
 want of such assistance, a passenger in alighting be 
 
 1 61 Wise. 325, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 113. 
 
 2 139 Mass. 556, Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. , note. 
 
 s O. & M. R. R. v. Gullett, 15 Ind. 487. 
 
 * Tebbutt v. B. & E. Ry., L. R. 6 Q. B. 73. 
 
 5 Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 485 ; Langan v. 
 St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 72 Mo. 392, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 355 ; C. & A. R. 
 B. v. Wilson, 63 111. 167.
 
 STATION APPROACHES. 257 
 
 injured without fault on his part, the railway is liable 
 to him in damages therefor. 1 
 
 254. Where the arrangement of a station is such that 
 a passenger has to cross a track, either before entering 
 or after leaving the cars, he has a right to assume that 
 that track may be crossed safely, and the railway is 
 liable if he be struck by a train moving on that track, 
 when he is approaching or leaving the cars or station. 2 
 As Andrews, J., said in Brassell v. N. Y. C. & H. 
 R. R. R., 3 " a passenger, when taking or leaving a rail- 
 road car at a station, has the right to assume that the 
 company will not expose him to unnecessary danger;, 
 and while he must himself exercise reasonable care, his 
 watchfulness is naturally diminished by his reliance 
 upon the discharge by the company of its duty to pas- 
 sengers to provide them with a safe passage to and from 
 the train." 
 
 255. Of course, a railway is not to be held liable to 
 the passengers at its stations or on its premises, for 
 injuries which do not result from its negligence; thus,, 
 in Cornman v. E. C. Ry., 4 the plaintiff having gone in 
 the dark to a luggage counter upon his arrival at the 
 defendant's station, in order to get a parcel, and while 
 standing there, a train having come in and a crowd of 
 passengers passing out forced the plaintiff against a 
 weighing machine, in falling over which he Was injured, 
 
 1 M. & C. R R. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466. 
 
 2 Rogers v. R. Ry., 26 L. T. N. K. S79 ; Warren v. F. R. R., 8 Allen 227 ; 
 Gaynor v. O. C. & N. R. R., 100 Mass. 208; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338 ; 
 Brassell v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 84 Id. 241, 3 Am. & Eng. R, R. Cas. 380 ; 
 Green v. E. Ry., 11 Hun 333 ; P. R. R. v. White, 88 Perma. St 327 ; Klein v. 
 Jewett, 26 X. J. Eq. 174 ; Armstrong v. N. Y. C.& II. R. R. R., 64 X. Y. 635 ; 
 B. & 0. K. R. v. State, to use of Hauer, 60 Md. 449, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 149 ; Chaffee v. B. & L. R. R., 104 Mass. 108 ; Wheelock v. Ii. & A. R. R. 
 105 Id. 203; Phillips v. R. & 8. R. R., 57 Barb. 644; serf. cf. I. C. R. R. v. 
 Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325. 
 
 * 84 N. Y. 241, 8 Am. A Eng. R. R. Cas. 380. « 4 II. & N. 781. 
 
 17
 
 258 ACCIDENTAL INJURIES AT STATIONS. 
 
 after verdict for the plaintiff a rule was made absolute 
 for a new trial, on the ground that there Avas no evi- 
 dence of negligence on the part of the railway. So, in 
 Crafter v. Metropolitan Ry., 1 the plaintiff, a frequent 
 traveller upon the defendant's train, in descending a 
 staircase leading from the highway to the defendant's 
 platform, slipped upon the casing of the stairs, which 
 was of brass, originally rough, but smooth by constant 
 use. Two witnesses having testified that the stairway 
 was unsafe, because the casing should have been of 
 lead not brass, a verdict passed for the plaintiff, but a rule 
 for a nonsuit was made absolute for want of proof of de- 
 fendant's negligence. 2 So, in Toomey v. L. B. & S. C. 
 Ey., 3 where on a station platform there were two doors, 
 the one having painted over it the words, " For gentle- 
 men," and the other having painted over it the words 
 " Lamp-room," and a passenger intending to go to the 
 urinal, having opened the other of the two doors, fell 
 down some steps and was injured, it was held that the 
 railway was not liable. So, in Potter v. W. & W. R. R./ 
 the railway was held not to be liable for injuries caused to 
 a girl by her tripping over a rail on a track which she 
 was crossing in order to board a train. So, in Welfare v. 
 L. & B. Ry., 5 it was proven that the plaintiff went to the 
 defendant's station as an intending passenger, and, hav- 
 ing made some inquiries respecting the departure of 
 the trains, and having been directed by the defendant's 
 porter to look at a time-table suspended on the wall of 
 the portico of the station, was, while looking at the time- 
 table, injured by a plank and roll of zinc which broke 
 through the roof and fell upon him, and through the 
 
 'L.E.1 C. P. 300. 
 
 * See Crocheron v. N. S. S. I. Ferry, 56 N. Y. 656, in which the facts wei« 
 similar, and the judgment also for the defendant. 
 
 8 3 C. B. N. S. 146, 91 E. C. L. 
 
 * 92 N. C 541, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 328. 6 L. R. 4 Q. B. 693.
 
 ACCIDENTAL INJURIES. 259 
 
 hole so made it was observed that a man was on the 
 roof. Blackburn, J., nonsuited the plaintiff, and the 
 Queen's Bench refused to take off the nonsuit, holding 
 that the railway could not be held liable for the defec- 
 tive condition of the roof in the absence of proof of 
 knowledge, or means of knowledge or obligation to 
 know the state of the roof, and that, as regards any pos- 
 sible negligence on the part of the man on the rooi) non 
 constat that he was not a servant of an independent con- 
 tractor rather than a servant of the railway. Upon the 
 same principle it was held that a railway was not liable 
 to a passenger for injuries caused by the bite of a dog, 
 which had strayed upon a station platform. 1 Nor is 
 the railway liable to a passenger who, in entering a car 
 at rest, falls ujjon its steps, for that is a case of inevita- 
 ble accident. 2 
 
 256. It is the duty of passengers on station platforms 
 to exercise a reasonable care for their own safety ; 3 thus, 
 it is contributory negligence in a passenger to run upon 
 a narrow platform by the side of a moving train, 4 or in 
 daylight to strike his head against a plank over the 
 platform, on which a porter is standing to clean a lamp. 5 
 So, if the passenger, where a safe and convenient plat- 
 form has been provided, voluntarily alights on the side 
 opposite to the platform, and while heedlessly crossing 
 a track is injured, the railway is not liable, 6 nor where 
 
 1 Smith v. G. E. Ry., L. R. 2 C. P. 54. 
 
 2 C, St. L. & N. O. R. R. v. Trotter, 61 Miss. 417, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 159. 
 
 » Renneker v. S. C. Ry., 20 Shand S. C. 219 ; Forsyth v. B. & A. R. R., 103 
 Mass. 510. 
 * Rigg v. M. S. & L. Ry., 12 Jur. N. S. 525. 
 
 5 Watkins v. G. W. Ry., 37 L. T. N. S. 193. 
 
 6 P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 318, 37 Id. 420 ; Bancroft v. B. & W. R. R., 
 97 Mass. 275 ; McQuilkin v. C. P. R. R., 64 Cal. 463, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 353 ; Forsyth v. B. & A. R. R., 103 Mass. 510 ; c/. P. R. R. t>. White, 88 Penna. 
 St. 327.
 
 260 NEGLIGENCE OF PASSENGEKS. 
 
 the passenger having arrived at the station after dark 
 in suffieient time to get to the platform voluntarily 
 waits and attempts to get on the car from the side away 
 from the station; 1 nor will negligence upon the part of 
 the railway, in failing to give notice of the approach of 
 a moving train, in all cases render it liable to one who 
 fails to exercise reasonable care as to his own safety ; 
 thus, in Carroll v. P. E. E., 2 the plaintiff, in going to 
 the defendant's station, intending to be a passenger and 
 attempting to pass in front of a moving train which, as 
 he had admitted he could have seen if he had looked, 
 was run over, and having been nonsuited at the trial 
 judgment for the defendant was affirmed in error. 3 On 
 the other hand, in D. W. & W. Ey. v. Slattery, 4 the 
 plaintiff's decedent having gone to the defendant's station 
 to accompany a relative who was going to take a train 
 and having crossed the line at night in front of an ap- 
 proaching train, obtained the ticket for the passenger 
 and recrossed behind that train and was killed by a 
 fast express train upon the other track. The evidence 
 was contradictory as to whether the express train had 
 whistled or given other notice of its approach, and after 
 verdict for the plaintiff, it was held, Lords Hatherly, 
 Coleridge, and Blackburn dissenting, that the case had 
 been properly left to the jury. 
 
 IX. BOARDING AND DESCENDING FROM TRAINS. 
 
 257. It is the duty of railways to give to passengers 
 at its stations reasonable notice of the starting of its 
 
 1 M. C. R. R. v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440; Harvey v. E. R. R, 116 Mass. 269. 
 ■ 12 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.), 348. 
 
 •See also Wheelwright v. B. & A. R. R., 135 Mass. 225, 16 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 315 ; C, B. & Q. R. R. r. Dewey, 26 111. 255. 
 4 3 Ap. Cas. 1155.
 
 CALLING NAME OF STATION. 261 
 
 trains, 1 and to give to its passengers in its trains reason- 
 able notice of the approach of the train to its stations, 
 in order that the passengers who are to leave the cars 
 may prepare to alight. 2 There has been some diversity 
 of opinion as to the effect of calling out the name of a 
 station when a train is in motion. In Lewis v. L. C. & 
 D. Ry., 3 Blackburn, J., said, "Calling out the name of 
 a station is not an invitation to alight." In Weller v. 
 L. B. & S. C. Ry., 4 Brett, J., said, "I agree that the 
 calling out the name of a station before the train has 
 come to a standstill is no evidence of negligence on the 
 part of the company;" and Honeyman, J., 5 expressed 
 his opinion to the same effect. In Whittaker v. M. & 
 S. Ry., 6 Bovill, C. J., said, it is "a question for the jury 
 whether the calling out of the name of a station amounts, 
 under all the circumstances, to an invitation to alight;" 
 and Willes, J., said, "I cannot now understand how it 
 could be said as a matter of law that the calling out of 
 the name of a station was not an invitation." In Bridges 
 v. N. L. Ry., 7 Pollock, B., said, "it is an announcement 
 by the railway officers that the train is approaching or 
 has arrived at the platform, and that the passengers 
 may get out when the train stops at the platform." 
 And Brett and Denman, JJ., thought that the question 
 was one for the jury. The subject was also somewhat 
 considered in P. R. R. v. Aspell, 8 and in P. R. R. v. 
 White, 9 but no positive view with regard to the neces- 
 sary legal effect of calling out the name of the station 
 
 1 Perry v. C. R. R., 58 Ga. 461. 66 Id. 746. 
 
 2 Dawson v. L. & N. R. R., Ky. ,11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 134. 
 8 L. R. 9 Q. B. 71. * L. R. 9 C. P. 132. 
 
 6 Id. 134. « L. R. 5 C. P. 464, note. 
 
 » L. R. 7 H. L. 224. • 23 Penna. St. 147. 
 
 • 88 Id. 327.
 
 262 CALLING NAME OF STATION. 
 
 was expressed. 1 In Penna. Co. v. Hoagland, 2 where the 
 railway's servant on a train in motion at night announced 
 that the next stop would be at a certain station, naming 
 it, and the train having stopped shortly afterwards upon 
 a siding ten miles short of the station, a female pas- 
 senger, whose destination was that particular station, 
 and who was unacquainted with the route of the railway 
 or the location of its stations, there alighted with the 
 assistance of a railway servant who asked her no ques- 
 tions, and the train then proceeded, leaving her alone, - 
 and it was held that the railway was liable. In Edgar 
 v. N. K. R., 3 where the railway was held liable to a 
 female passenger who was injured in alighting from a 
 slowly moving train at a station, Patterson, J. A., said: 
 "the announcement that the next station was Lefroy 
 does not strike me as having much significance. As a 
 statement of a fact, it contained nothing new to the 
 plaintiff, and as a statement that it was intended that 
 certain passengers should get off the train at that station, 
 it contained no more information than what was con- 
 tained in the contract evidenced by the tickets. But, 
 taken in connection with the slowing of the train with- 
 out stopping it, it is, as far as it goes, a bit of evidence 
 consistent with the position taken by the plaintiff." 
 Perhaps, the right deduction from the cases is that the 
 
 1 See also Lewis v. L. C. & D. By., L. E. 9 Q. B 71 ; Weller v. L. B. & S. C. 
 Ky., L. E. 9 C. P. 132, 134; Whittaker v. M. & S. Ey., L. E. 5 C. P. 464, 
 note ; Bridges v. N. L. Ey., L. E. 7 H. L. 224 ; P. E. E. v. Aspell, 23 Penna, 
 St. 117 ; P. R. E. v. White, 88 Id. 327; C E. E. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. L 
 133; .Mitchell v. C. & G. T. Ey., 51 Mich. 236, 18 Am.& Eng. E. E. Cas. 176 
 Taber v. D., II. & L. Ey., 71 N. Y. 489; C. I. E. E. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408 
 Pabst v. B. & P. E. R., 2 McArthur 42; Nicholls v. G. S. & W. Ey., 7 Ir. G 
 L. 40; Thompson i>. B., H. & II. Ey., 5 Id. 517; Brooks v. B. & M. E. E., 135 
 Mass. 21, 10 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 345; Edgar v. N. E. E., 4 Ont. (Can.) 
 201, 16 Am.& Eng.E. R. Cas. 347; Penna. Co. v. Hoagland, 78 Ind. 203, 3 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 436. 
 
 8 78 Ind. 203, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 436. 
 
 3 11 Ont. App. 452, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 433.
 
 DUTY TO STOP TRAINS, ETC. 263 
 
 effect which is to be attributed to such an announcement 
 is for the jury, if circumstances show that the announce- 
 ment was so made as to induce the person injured to 
 believe that the next stop of the train would be at a 
 station, at Avhich he might safely leave the train. 
 
 258. It is the duty of the railway to stop its trains, 
 for a reasonable time, at way stations in order that pas- 
 sengers may get on or off the cars with safety j 1 and the 
 railway is liable when its conductor, or other servant, 
 gives a signal to start while a passenger is obviously in 
 the act of getting on or off its train, 2 but if the train has 
 stopped a reasonable time, and the passenger has given 
 no notice of an intention to alight, and the conductor 
 does not see him in the act of alighting, the railway is 
 not liable for the act of its conductor in starting the train. 3 
 
 259. A passenger who is carried past the station, or 
 who is not taken up at the station to or from which the 
 railway had contracted to carry him, is entitled to re- 
 cover compensatory damages. 4 I have, in section 24, 
 
 1 Bucher v. N. Y. C. & H. E. R. R., 98 N. Y. 128 ; Wood v. L. S. & M. S. 
 Ry., 49 Mich. 370; Brooks v. B. & M. R. R., 135 Mass. 21 ; D. & M. R. R. v. 
 Curtis, 23 Wise. 152, 27 Id. 158 ; S. R. R. v. Kendrick, 40 Miss. 374 ; Imhoff 
 v. C. & M. R. R., 20 Wise. 344 ; N. O. R. R. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 ; Milli- 
 mann v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 66 N. Y. 642 ; P. R. R. v. Kilgore, 32 Penna. 
 St. 292 ; J., M. & I. R. R. v. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 42 ; Keller v. S. C. & St. P. R. 
 R., 27 Minn. 178 ; Swigert v. H. & St. J. Ry., 75 Mo. 475, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 322 ; W. St. L. & P. Ry. v. Rector, 104 111. 296, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 264 ; Penna. Co. v. Hoagland, 78 Ind. 203, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 436 ; T. 
 W. & W. Ry. v. Baddeley, 54 111. 19 ; Fuller v. N. R. R., 21 Conn. 557 ; Davis 
 v. C. & N. W. Ry., 18 Wise. 175. 
 
 2 Swigert v. H. & St. J. R. R., 75 Mo. 475, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 322 ; 
 Bucher v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 98 N. Y. 128 ; Keating v. N. Y. C. &. H. R. 
 It. It., 49 Id. 673 ; Mitchell v. W. & A. E. R., 30 Ga. 22 ; C. W. D. Ry. v. Mills, 
 105 111. 63, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 128. 
 
 ■• Straus v. K. C, St. J. & C. B. Ry., 75 Mo. 185, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 38 1 ; H. & St. J. R. It. v. CJotworthy, 80 Mo. 220, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 371. 
 
 ' Hobbs v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill; C, St. L. & N. O. It. R. v. 
 Scnrr, 59 Miss. 456, 6 Am. & Eng. It. 3. Cas. 341 ; Trigg v. St. L., K. C. & N. 
 It. R.. 74 Mo. 147, 6 Am. & Eng. It. R. Cas. 345 ; I. & G. N. R. R. v. Terry, 
 62 Tex. 380, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 323.
 
 264 BOARDING AND LEAVING TRAINS. 
 
 given my reasons for the opinion, that when a passenger, 
 not having been set down or taken up at the station to 
 or from which the railway has contracted to carry him, 
 is injured in the attempt to board or leave a moving 
 train the railway is not liable to him, for his injuries 
 are the consequence, not of the railway's breach of con- 
 tract, but of his own rash act. There are, however, 
 many authorities for the proposition that in such a case 
 the railway is liable, if the person injured in getting on 
 or off the train did not incur a danger obviously appar- 
 ent to the mind of a reasonable man. 1 It is, neverthe- 
 less, generally held that when the train is moving at so 
 high a rate of speed, or where the j^lace of the passengers' 
 ascent or descent is so obviously perilous, that a person 
 of ordinary prudence would not attempt to get on or off 
 the train then and there, the act of the person injured 
 in so doing is such contributory negligence as will bar 
 his recovery. 2 It is, a fortiori, contributory negligence 
 
 1 Bucher v. N. Y. C. & H. E. R, E., 98 N. Y. 128 ; Swigert v. H. & St. J. 
 E. E., 75 Mo. 475, 9 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 322 ; C. E. E. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 
 461, 66 Id. 746 ; Johnson v. W. C. & P. E. E., 70 Penna. St. 357 ; P. E. E. v. 
 Kilgore, 32 Id. 292 ; C. V. E. E. v. Maugans, 61 Md. 53, IS Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 1S2; Edgar v. N. Ey., 4 Ont. (Can.) 201 ; Doss v, M., K. & T. E. E., 59 Mo. 
 37 ; Loyd v. H. & St. J. E. E., 53 Id. 509; Curtis v. D. & M. E. E,, 27 Wise. 
 158 ; D. & M. E. E. v. Curtis, 23 Id. 152 ; Filer v. N. Y. C/E. E., 49 N. Y. 47 ; 
 Delamatyr v. M. & P. M. C. E. E., 24 Wise. 578 ; Davis v. C. & N. W. Ey., 18 
 Id. 175 ; Price v. St. L., K. C. & N. E. E., 72 Mo. 414, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 365 ; St. L., I. M. & S. E. E. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & Eng. E. R. 
 Cas. 198 ; C. & A. E. E. v. Bonifield, 104 111. 223, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 443; Lambeth v. N. C. E. E., 66 N. C. 494; U. P. E. E. v. Diehl, 33 Kans. 
 422, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 350 ; Boss v. P. & W. E E. E. I. , 21 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 364 ; H. & St. J. E. E. v. Clotworthy, 80 Mo. 220, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 371 ; M. & L. R. R. R. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 32, 21 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374. 
 
 2 McCorkle v. C, R. I & P. Ey., 61 Iowa 555 ; Phillips v. E. & S. R. R., 49 
 N. Y. 177 ; Harper v. E. Ry., 32 N. J. L. 88 ; D., S. P. & P. R. R. v. Pickard, 
 8 Colo. 163; M. C. Ry. v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440; Harvey v. E. R. R., 116 
 Mass. 269 ; P. E. R. v. Aspell, 23 Penna. St. 147; G., II. & S. A. R. R. v. Le 
 Gierse. 51 Tex. 189; Lindsey v. C, R. I. & P. E. E., 64 Iowa 407, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. E. R. Cas. 179; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Bangs, 47 Mich. 470; C. R. R. », 
 Letcher, 69 Ala. 106, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 115; Burrows v. E. Ry., 63
 
 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, ETC. 265 
 
 in a passenger to attempt to board a train passing a way 
 station when the train has not been flagged, and the 
 servants in charge of the train have no reason to expect 
 that a passenger will attempt to get on the train then 
 and there. 1 
 
 260. Statutory regulations requiring certain signals 
 to be given upon the approach of an engine or car to a 
 railway station or highway crossing are primarily in- 
 tended for the protection of persons approaching the 
 line, and not of persons who are in or upon the cars; 2 
 nor will the railway's neglect to give due notice, or even 
 the particular notice prescribed by statutory authority, 
 of the starting of a train from a way station render it 
 liable to a passenger who voluntarily and without notice 
 to the railway's servants jumps from the train after it 
 has gotten under way; 3 nor will the railway's neglect 
 to give the statutory notice required before putting in 
 
 N. Y. 556 ; J. R. R. v. Hendricks, 26 Ind. 228 ; Gavett v. M. & L. R. R., 16 
 Gray 501 ; Hickey v. B. & L. R. R., 14 Allen 429 ; Davis v. C. & N. Ry., 18 
 Wise. 175; Nelson v. A. & P. R. R., 68 Mo. 595 ; Kelly v. H. & St. J. R. R., 
 70 Id. 604 ; Strauss v. K. C, St. J. & C. B. Ry., 75 Id. 185, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 384 ; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Leslie, 57 Tex. 83, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 384 ; 
 S. W. R. R. v. Singleton, 67 Ga. 306 ; Jewell v. C, St. P. & M. Ry., 54 Wise. 
 610, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 379 ; I. C. R. R. v. Chambers, 71 111. 519 ; I. C. 
 R. R. v. Lutz, 84 Id. 598 ; Dougherty v. C, B. & Q. R. R., 86 Id. 467 ; R. & D. 
 R. R. v. Morris, 31 Gratt. 200 ; Gonzales v. N. Y. & H. R. R. R., 50 How. Pr. 
 126 ; Secor v. T. P. & W. R. R., 10 Fed. Rep. 15; Blodgett v. Bartlett, 50 Ga. 
 353 ; Haldan v. G. W. Ry., 30 Up. Can. (C. P.) 89 ; Knight v. P. R. R., 23 
 I -a. An. 462; Hubener v. N. O. & C R. R., Id. 492; Mitchell v. C. & G. T. 
 E?, 31 Mich. 266, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 ; McCorkle v. C, R. I. & P. 
 Ry., 61 Iowa 555, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 156 ; W., St. L. & P. Ry. v. Rector, 
 104 111. 296, 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 264 ; R. & D. R. R. v. Morris, 31 Gratt. 
 200 ; Damont v. N. O. & C. R. R., 9 La. An. 441 ; I. C. R. R. v. Able, 59 111. 
 131 ; J. R. R. v. Swift, 26 Ind. 459; E. & C. R. R. v. Duncan. 28 Ind. 111 ; I. 
 C. R. R- v. Slatton, 54 111. 133 ; O. & M. R. R. v Schiebe, 44 111. 460 ; H. & T. 
 C. R. R. v. Schmidt, HI Tex. 282, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345; Adams v. L. 
 & X. R. R., Ky. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 380; S. & N. A. R. R.v. 
 flchaufler, 75 Ala. 136, 21 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 405. 
 
 1 D., S. P. & P. Ry. v. Pickard, 8 Colo. 163, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 284. 
 
 a A. G. S. Ry. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 194. 
 
 1 C. R. R. & B. Co. v. Letcher, 69 Ala. 106, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 115.
 
 266 ALIGHTING FROM CAR AT EEST. 
 
 motion a freight train standing on the line render it 
 liable to a passenger who, having left his train, attempts 
 to pass under the coupling which connects two of the 
 cars of the freight train. 1 
 
 261. While it is the duty of a railway company to 
 provide reasonably safe and convenient means of ingress 
 and egress from its cars and carriages, the railway is 
 only to be held liable for accidents happening to its 
 passengers in descending from a car when at rest at a 
 station, if the circumstances are such as to induce the 
 passenger to believe that he has reached his point of 
 destination, and that it is safe for him to get out. 2 In 
 contrasting the American and English decisions, the 
 difference in the mode of construction between railway 
 carriages commonly used in England and American 
 passenger cars must be borne in mind. Thus, in Foy v. 
 L. B. & S. C. R. R., 3 by reason of the occupation of 
 the platform by another train, the carriage in which 
 the plaintiff was a passenger on reaching its terminus 
 in the daytime did not come up to the platform. The 
 door of the carriage being some three feet above the 
 ground, the defendant's porter requested the plaintiff, a 
 female passenger, to alight. There w T ere two steps, one 
 on a level with the door, and the other one eighteen 
 
 1 M. & C. R. R. v. Copeland, 61 Ala. 376. 
 
 2 Foy v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 18 C. B. N. S. 225, 114 E. C. L. ; Praeger v B. & 
 E. Ry., 24 L. T. N. S. 105 ; Cockle v. L. & S. E. Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 457, 7 Id. 
 321 ; Weller v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., L. R. 9 C. P. 126 ; Bridges v. N. L. Ry., L. 
 R. 7 H. L. 213; Robson v. N. E. Ry., L. R. 10 Q. B. D. 371 ; Rose v. N. E. 
 Ry., 2 Ex. D. 248 ; Foulkes v. M. D. Ry., 4 C. P. D. 267, 5 Id. 157 ; P. R. R. 
 r. White, 88 Penna. St. 327 ; T. H. & I. Ry. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 234 ; Cartwright v. C. & G. T. Ry., 52 Mich. 606, 16 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 321 ; C. & I. C. R. R. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408 ; Gaynor v. O. C. 
 & N. Ry., 100 Mass. 208 ; Brooks v. B. & M. R. R., 135 Mass. 21, 16 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 345; Edgar v. N. R. R., 4 Ont. 201, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 347; C. R. R. v. Van Horn, 38 N. J. Law 133; Edgar v. N. R. R., 11 Ont. 
 App. 452, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 433. 
 
 8 18 C. B. N. S. 225, 114 E. C. L.
 
 ALIGHTING FROM CAR AT REST. 267 
 
 inches below that. The plaintiff got on the first step, 
 and taking the hand of a gentleman jumped to the 
 ground, and being in delicate health the concussion in- 
 jured her spine. Erie, C. J., left it to the jury to say 
 whether the accident was due to the plaintiff's careless- 
 ness, or to the defendant's negligence in not providing 
 a convenient means of descent. There was a verdict 
 for the plaintiff, and the court refused a new trial. In 
 Praeger v. B. & E. Ry., 1 the train had after dark drawn 
 up at a dimly lighted station, the platform not being 
 parallel to the rails, but by reason of its being beveled 
 off to make room for a siding, being some two feet away 
 from the carriage in which the plaintiff, a male pas- 
 senger, was riding. A guard opened the door, and said 
 nothing, and the plaintiff, believing that he was stepping 
 upon the platform, stepped out and fell between the car- 
 riage and the platform. Judgment on a verdict for the 
 plaintiff was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber on the 
 ground that there was evidence of negligence on the 
 part of the defendant in that the station was dimly 
 lighted, the platform was defectively constructed, and 
 the defendant's servant omitted to warn the passenger 
 not to alight. In Cockle v. L. & S. E. Ry., 2 the facts 
 were identical with those in Praeger's case, excepting 
 that no guard had opened the carriage door, and it was 
 held in the Exchequer Chamber that " the leaving a car- 
 riage which had been brought up to a place at which 
 it is unsafe for a passenger to alight, under circumstances 
 which warrant the passenger in believing that it is in- 
 tended he shall get out, and that he may, therefore, do 
 so with safety, without any warning of his danger, 
 amounts to negligence on the part of the company." 
 In Weller v. L. B. & S. C. R. R., 3 the train after dark 
 
 1 24 L. T. N. S. 105. a L. R. 5 C. P. 457, 7 Id. 321. 
 
 » L. R. 9 C P. 126.
 
 2G8 ALIGHTING FROM CAR AT REST. 
 
 was approaching a station, the lamps of which were not 
 lit, when the porter having called out the name, the 
 train overshot the platform and came to a final stop. 
 The plaintiff, a male passenger, and a commuter, hear- 
 ing the doors open and shut and seeing persons getting 
 out of the next carriage, stepped out and was hurt. At 
 the trial he was nonsuited, but a rule to take off the 
 nonsuit was made absolute, upon the ground that the 
 defendant was negligent in stopping its train at a point 
 where the lights were not lit, and in not warning the 
 passenger not to alight. In Bridges v. N. L. Ry., 1 
 Highbury Station was at the mouth of a tunnel, the 
 platform extending into the tunnel. The train arrived 
 after dark, the carriage in which the plaintiff, a com- 
 muter, was riding having stopped in the tunnel, but 
 not at the platform, and the name of the station having 
 been called by the guard. The plaintiff's decedent fell 
 in getting out of the carriage, and died from the in- 
 juries thereby caused. It was held sufficient evidence 
 of defendant's negligence for the jury. In Robson v. 
 N. E. Ry., 2 the facts were identical with those in Lewis' 
 case, and it was held by the Queen's Bench and by the 
 Court of Appeal that the defendant was negligent in 
 not stopping the carriage at the platform, and that the 
 plaintiff had a right to suppose that if she did not get 
 out the train would proceed, and that the defendant was 
 also negligent in not providing some safe means for 
 women to alight. In Rose v. N. E. Ry., 3 the train had 
 stopped at a station ; the carriage in which the plain- 
 tiff, a female passenger, was riding being beyond the 
 platform. The porter called to the passengers to keep 
 their seats. The plaintiff waited some time, but the 
 train not having backed, she got out, and in so doing 
 
 1 L. R. 6 Q. B. 377, 7 H. L. 213. J L. R. 10 Q. B. 271. 
 
 8 2 Ex. D. 248.
 
 ALIGHTING AT STATIONS. 269 
 
 was injured. The jury found for the plaintiff, and 
 leave was given to the defendant to move to enter a 
 nonsuit. The court below entered the nonsuit, but 
 the Court of Appeal reversed and entered judgment 
 for the plaintiff, holding that the company was negli- 
 gent in not backing its train, or in not providing ser- 
 vants to assist the passengers in getting out. In Foulkes 
 v. M. D. Ry., 1 the door of the carriage in which the 
 plaintiff travelled was about two feet three inches above 
 the platform of the station at which the plaintiff was to 
 alight. Although it was after dark, and the carriage 
 had neither platform nor steps, no warning was given 
 to the plaintiff as to the depth of descent from the car- 
 riage to the platform, and in getting out he fell and was 
 injured. It was held that there was evidence of negli- 
 gence on the part of the defendant. In P. R. R. v. 
 White, 2 the defendant's train on approaching Penn 
 Valley Station slowed up and stopped opposite a house 
 marked " Penn Valley Station," the brakeman having 
 announced before the train came to a stop, " the next 
 station is Penn Valley." The plaintiff's decedent 
 stepped off the car after it had come to a stop on the 
 side towards the platform, but separated from the plat- 
 form by another track, and was struck by a passing 
 express train and killed. The train had stopped under 
 the company's rules that local trains should give 
 way to express trains at stations, the regular station 
 being on the right side of the train and some distance 
 from where the train had stopped. The court below 
 entered judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff, and 
 the Supreme Court affirmed it on the ground that it 
 was for the jury to say whether, under the circumstances, 
 the plaintiff had a right to suppose that the train had 
 
 1 L. B. 4 C. P. D. 267, 5 Id. 157. ■ 88 Penna. St. 327.
 
 270 ALIGHTING AT STATIONS. 
 
 come to a final stop at his point of destination. In C. 
 & I. C. B. R. v. Farrell, 1 the railway was held liable 
 to a passenger who was injured in alighting from the 
 cars at night, the train having come to a stop on a 
 bridge over a culvert, and a railway servant having 
 called out the name of the station. 
 
 262. On the other hand, where a passenger, in the 
 exercise of reasonable care, can see that by getting out 
 then and there in his own way, he is encountering a 
 peril, the railway is not liable. 2 Thus, in Siner v. G. W. 
 By., 3 the facts were similar to those in Foy's case, ex- 
 cepting that no servant of the defendant requested the 
 plaintiff to alight. At the trial the plaintiff was non- 
 suited, and the Exchequer Chamber affirmed the refusal 
 of the court below to take it off, upon the ground that 
 there was no evidence of negligence upon the part of 
 the defendant, the accident having been solely caused 
 by the plaintiff's own negligence in disregarding her 
 duty to use the conveniences provided by the company, 
 Hannen, J., saying : " other people got down without 
 injury. It is true the female plaintiff said she could 
 not. But she does not say why she could not. Sup- 
 pose she had said so of an ordinary platform. The 
 bare assertion would not be enough ; and applying the 
 common knowledge we all have as to the construction 
 of carriages, I think it lay upon the plaintiff to show 
 more special reason why it was dangerous or impossible 
 to use the footboard, so as to make it negligence on the 
 part of the company not to provide some other means 
 of alighting;" and Mellor, J., added, "the evidence 
 
 1 31 Ind. 408. 
 
 1 Siner v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 150, 4 Id. 117 ; Lewis v. L. C. & D. Ry., L. 
 R. 9 Q. B. 66; D., L.&W. R. R. v. Napheys, 90 Penna. St. 135 ; P. R. R. v. 
 Zebe, 33 Td. 318, 37 Id. 420 ; E. & C. R. R. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 441 ; Mitchell 
 v. C. & G. T. Ry., 51 Mich. 236 ; Frost v. G. T. Ry., 10 Allen 387. 
 
 "L.R. 3 Ex. 150, 4 Id. 117.
 
 ALIGHTING AT STATIONS. 271 
 
 seems to me to establish, not negligence, but only a less 
 degree of convenience than is usual, and for that the 
 defendants are not responsible." In Lewis v. L. C. & 
 ^ D. Ry., 1 a female passenger for Bromley, while the 
 train was passing after dark through the station, which 
 she knew well, heard the name of the station called by 
 the guard ; the train then stopped, with the carriage in 
 which the plaintiff was riding, at a point beyond the 
 platform. The plaintiff attempted to get out, and at 
 that moment the train started to back to the platform, 
 and the plaintiff fell and was injured. The plaintiff 
 was nonsuited. In D., L. & W. R. R. v. Napheys, 2 the 
 facts were identical with those in Foy's and Siner's 
 cases, and it was held that there was no evidence of 
 negligence upon the part of the defendant, Sterrett, J., 
 saying, in his judgment: "the cars were at rest on the 
 track; there was no jar or breaking of machinery. 
 Mrs. Napheys, with the assistance of her husband, was 
 descending the steps from the platform of the car. 
 They had every opportunity of seeing and knowing 
 where she was going, and controlling her movements. 
 If the lower step were inconveniently or dangerously 
 high for her in the condition she was, she and her hus- 
 band has as good an opportunity as any one else of 
 knowing the fact. If they had even a suspicion that it 
 was in the least degree unsafe for her to take the last 
 step, there was no urgent necessity for her to do so. 
 The train had reached its destination, and there was no 
 occasion for haste in leaving the car. If they had any 
 apprehension of danger, or even of inconvenience in 
 descending from the lower step, there was nothing to 
 prompt them to incur the risk. They might have 
 called on those in charge of the train to provide a 
 better and more convenient means of egress if they 
 
 1 L. E. 9 Q. B. 70. * 90 Penna. St. 135.
 
 272 ALIGHTING AT STATIONS. 
 
 deemed it necessary." In P. R. R. v. Zebe, 1 the plain- 
 tiff sued to recover damages for the death of his son. 
 The plaintiff and his son were passengers on a train 
 which stopped at its destination at the station platform. 
 At that point the defendant's line had two tracks, and 
 the j^laintiff and his son, instead of getting out upon the 
 platform side of the train, got out upon the other side, 
 and the son was killed by a train passing upon the 
 other track. The case was twice tried, and came twice 
 before the Supreme Court, the jury finding for the 
 plaintiff upon each occasion, the court below entering 
 judgment on the verdict, and the Supreme Court re- 
 versing. In the first report the judgment was reversed, 
 because the court below left the case to the jury without 
 proof of any necessity justifying the plaintiff and his 
 son in descending from the car upon the side away 
 from the platform. In the second report, the judgment 
 was reversed because the court below admitted the evi- 
 dence of two witnesses that they were in the habit, at 
 that station, of getting out from that side which was 
 away from the platform. And in each report, it was 
 held that the duties of the carrier and the passengers 
 are reciprocal, the carrier being bound to provide a 
 " safe and convenient means of egress and regress to and 
 from the line of their road," and the duty of the 
 passenger being to comply with "all the company's 
 reasonable rules and regulations for entering, occupying 
 and leaving the cars." Nor is the railway, when its 
 train is stopped at night before coming up to a station, 
 liable to one who, having boarded the train to look for 
 his wife and child, whom he expected to find as passen- 
 gers on the train, carelessly steps off a car platform into 
 a culvert, which he did not see in the darkness. 2 
 
 1 33 Penna. St. 318, 37 Id. 420. 
 Stiles v. A. & W. P. E. R., 65 Ga. 370, 8 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 195.
 
 ALIGHTING AT STATIONS. 273 
 
 ' 263. It is not possible to reconcile all the cases, and 
 some two or three of the English cases might have been 
 differently decided if the judges who decided them had 
 not misapprehended the force and effect of the decision 
 of the House of Lords in Bridge's case as to the re- 
 spective provinces of the court and the jury. But there 
 is one broad ground of distinction running through the 
 cases which serves to reconcile most of them, and that 
 is, that while it is the duty of a railway to provide 
 reasonably safe and convenient means of ingress and 
 egress from its cars and carriages, the railway is only 
 to be held liable for accidents happening to passengers 
 in descending from its cars at rest when the circumstances 
 are such as to induce a passenger to believe that he has 
 reached his point of destination, and that it is safe for 
 him to get out. In this category are the cases of 
 Praeger, Cockle, Weller, Bridges, Bobson, Kose, Foulke, 
 White, and similar cases. On the other hand, the com- 
 pany is not to be held liable where the passenger, in 
 the exercise of reasonable care, can see that by getting 
 out then and there in his own way he is encountering 
 peril. This is the result of the cases of Siner, Lewi's, 
 Napheys, Zebe, and similar cases. 
 
 264. It is not necessarily contributory negligence in 
 a passenger to attempt to enter or leave a car at rest 
 when it is not in position at the platform ; ] and espe- 
 cially is this the case when the railway has usually per- 
 mitted passengers to so enter its cars. 2 
 
 265. It is the duty of a railway operating street cars 
 to allow to passengers a reasonable opportunity to alight 
 
 1 Stoner v. Penna. Co., 98 Ind. 384, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 340; Keating 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 49 N. Y. 673 ; Phillips v. R. & S. R. R , 57 Barbour 
 644. 
 
 * McDonald v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 Iowa 124. 
 18
 
 274 railway's duty in operating line. 
 
 from the cars ; l and the passenger on a street car should 
 give to the servant in charge of the car a reasonable 
 notice of his intention to alight; 2 but when the car has 
 come to a stop, a passenger is justified in attempting to 
 alight, and it is immaterial that he did not request the 
 conductor to make the stop for him, or notify the con- 
 ductor that he intended to get off then and there. 3 
 
 X. THE DUTY OF THE RAILWAY TO ITS PASSENGERS IN 
 THE OPERATION OF ITS LINE. 
 
 206. That duty of care for their safety which the 
 railway owes to its passengers requires it to use in the 
 operation of its line every precaution which the expe- 
 rience of well-managed railways has shown to be essen- 
 tial to the transportation of passengers in safety. The 
 railway is, therefore, liable whenever a passenger is in- 
 jured, without fault on his part, by its negligent con- 
 duct of its business ; as, for instance, by a collision be- 
 tween trains on the line, 4 or by a collision between a 
 train and cars on a siding ; 5 or between two street cars; 6 
 or by a derailment of the train carrying the passenger; 7 
 
 1 C. C. Ry. v. Mumford, 97 111. 560 ; Wardle v. N. O. C. R. R., 35 La. An. 
 202, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 60; Knowlton v. M. C. R. R., 59 Wise. 278, 16 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 330 ; Ward v. C. C. R. R., 19 Shand (S. C.) 521, 16 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 356. 
 
 1 Mulhado v. B. C. R. R., 30 N. Y. 370; Oram v. M. R. R., 112 Mass. 38; 
 Nichols v. M. R. R., 106 Id. 463. 
 
 3 C. W. D. Ry. v. Mills, 105 111 63, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 128 ; Rathbone 
 v. U. R. R., 13 R. I. 709, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 58. 
 
 * Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 5 Ex. 787 ; I. R. R. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 
 418, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 361 ; N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v. Albertson, 38 
 Miss. 242. 
 
 5 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. v. Seyholt, 95 N. Y. 562, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 162 ; Farlow v. Kelly, 108 U. S. 288. 
 
 8 Smith v. St. P. C. Ry., 32 Minn. 1, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 310. 
 
 » Carpue v. L. & B. Ry., 5 Q. B. 747, 48 E. C. L. ; Dawson v. M. Ry., 7 H. & 
 N. 1037 ; Sullivan v. P."& R. R. R., 30 Penna. St. 234 ; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. 
 R. v. Daugherty, 11 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 437 ; Edgerton v. N. Y. C.
 
 DUTY IN OPERATING LINE. 275 
 
 or by an explosion of the boiler of a locomotive ;* or by 
 a negligent coupling of another car to that in which 
 the passenger is carried, so that the passenger is injured 
 by the jar; 2 or by the knocking of a gate bar at a 
 crossing against a train by a runaway team ; 3 or by a 
 jet of water thrown from a water tank upon a pas- 
 senger; 4 or by a jet of steam thrown on a passenger in 
 leaving a steamboat which the railway operates as a 
 part of its line ; 5 or by a collision with a coal bin in 
 too close proximity to the line. 6 So also the railway is 
 liable when its servants, being aware that a bridge, 
 which constitutes part of the line, has been carried 
 away by a flood, do not take the proper means to stop 
 an approaching train; 7 or where repairs to a line are 
 so negligently conducted that a collision ensues oetween 
 a passenger train and a construction train. 8 So the 
 railway is liable for injuries to a passenger in entering 
 a street car, caused by its negligence in banking up on 
 the sides of its line snow which it had removed there- 
 from. 9 So, also, the railway is liable for negligently 
 
 & H. R. R. R., 39 N.Y. 227; Festal v. M. R. R, 109 Mass. 720; George v. 
 St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 34 Ark. 613, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 294 ; P., C. & 
 St. L. Ry. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 462 ; G, C, G & I. Ry. v. Newell, 75 Id. 542 ; 
 Gurtis v. R. & S. R. R., 18 N.Y. 534; Tuttle v. G, R. I. & P. Ry., 48 Iowa 
 236; Brignoli v. G & G. E. R. R., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 182; G, B. & Q. R. R. v. 
 George, 19 111. 510 ; L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Mills, 40 Ark. 298, 13 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 10 ; Yonge v. Kerrney, 28 Ga. Ill ; T. & St. L. R. R. v. Suggs, 62 
 Tex. 323, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 475 ; K. G R. R. v. Thomas, 79 Ky. 160, 
 1 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 79 ; Brown v. N. Y. G R. R., 34 N. Y. 404 ; G, R. I. 
 & P. Ry. v. McAra, 52 111. 296 ; N. & G R. R. v. Messino, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 
 220. 
 
 1 Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 20 Blatchf. 338. 
 
 1 White v. F. R. R., 136 Mass. 321. 3 Tyrrel v. E. R. R., Ill Mass. 546. 
 
 * T. H. & I. R. R. v. Jackson, 81 Ind. 19, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 178. 
 
 5 Gruber v. W. & J. R. R., 92 N. G 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 438. 
 
 6 Dickinson v. P., H. & N. W. R. R., 53 Mich. 43, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 456. 
 
 7 Lambkin v. S. E. Ry., 5 App. Cas. 352. 
 
 8 Matteson v. N. Y. G R. R., 35 N. Y. 487. 
 
 8 Dixon v. B., C. & N. R. R., 100 N.Y. 171.
 
 276 SPEED OF TRAIN. 
 
 bringing a train to a stop at the crossing of anothei 
 Line in such a position that a passenger in or on its car 
 is injured by a collision with cars negligently moved on 
 that other line. 1 So the railway is liable for injuries 
 caused by the absence of a bell rope by which the train 
 might have been stopped ; 2 or by which the passenger 
 might have communicated with the guard; 3 and the 
 railway is liable for injuries caused by the fall of a 
 negligently constructed berth in a sleeping-car. 4 Illus- 
 trations might be multiplied indefinitely, but it is not 
 necessary, for the result of the authorities is simply 
 this, that the railway is liable for the injury incurred 
 by the passenger in the operation of the line, whenever 
 it is shown that that injury was caused either by the 
 railway's omission of some precaution which it was 
 bound to take for his protection, or by the commission 
 of a negligent act by some one for whose acts the rail- 
 way is legally responsible. 
 
 267. No rate of speed, however high, can be said to 
 be necessarily negligence as to passengers in the train; 5 
 but, of course, nothing will justify a high rate of speed 
 under conditions of danger. 6 Thus, where the line is out 
 of repair, it is negligence to run trains at a high rate of 
 speed. 7 So, in White v. M. C. Ry., 8 it was held to be 
 negligence with regard to a passenger in a street rail- 
 way, to run its car at a high rate of speed over rails 
 
 1 Kellow v. C. I. E. E., Iowa , 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 485. See 
 also P. P. Ey. v. Weiller, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 306. 
 
 * M. E. E. v. Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 16, 49 Id. 305. 
 s Blamires v. L. & Y. Ey , L. E. 8 Ex. 283. 
 
 * Penna. Co. v. Eoy, 102 U. S. 451 ; C, C, C. & I. E. E. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio 
 St. 461. 8 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 371. 
 
 5 G. E. & I. E. E. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537. 
 
 « O, C, C. & I. E. E. v. Newell, 75 Ind. 542, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 483. 
 
 7 P. P. & J. E. E. v. Eeynolds, 88 111. 418 ; O. & M. Ey. v. Selby, 47 Ind. 
 471 ; M. P. Ey. v. Collier, 62 Tex. 318, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 281. 
 
 8 61 Wise. 536, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 213.
 
 SPEED OF TRAIN. 277 
 
 unguarded by frogs, at the entrance to a swinging 
 bridge. So, in Ellett v. St. L, K. C. & N. By., 1 the 
 railway was held to be negligent as regards a passenger 
 who was injured by a derailment of the train consequent 
 upon a sinking of the track in a flood, the engine- 
 driver having run the train at a high rate of speed 
 under conditions of danger ; so in I., B. & W. B. B. v. 
 Hall, 2 a jury were permitted to find the railway negli- 
 gent as to a passenger in a train which was derailed by 
 striking a cow on a straight line of track on a prairie, 
 because the train was running, soon after daybreak of a 
 foggy morning, upon its schedule time, fifty miles an 
 hour, the judge, at the trial, having left to the jury the 
 question whether or not, under the circumstances, the 
 rate of speed was negligent. The test of the proxi- 
 mateness or remoteness of the speed as a cause of in- 
 jury in any case of collision or derailment is to be 
 found in the answer to the question, was or was not that 
 speed prudent under the circumstances, as those circum- 
 stances either were, or ought to have been known, to 
 the servant who directed the movement of the train ? 
 
 268. The railway is also liable to its passengers for 
 injuries caused by the negligent closing of a door of a 
 car by a servant of the railway. Thus in Fordham v. 
 B. & S. C. By., 3 the plaintiff, while entering the de- 
 fendant's carriage after dark, holding a parcel in his 
 right hand, placed his left hand upon the open door of 
 the carriage, and a guard from without closed the door, 
 and in so doing injured the plaintiff's left hand; and it 
 was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. 4 So, 
 in G. H. & S. A. B. B. v. Davidson, 5 where the plain- 
 
 1 76 Mo. 518. 2 106 111. 371, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 146. 
 
 8 L. R. 3 C. P. 368, 4 Id. 619. 
 
 * See also Coleman v. S. E. By., 4 II. & C. 699. 
 
 6 61 Tex. 204, 21 Am. & Eng. R. E. ( '.is. 431.
 
 278 CAR DOORS. 
 
 tiff sued for injuries received in an ordinary American 
 saloon car, by the act of a railway servant in closing 
 the door upon the plaintiff's hand, it was held that it 
 was for the jury to determine whether or not the act of 
 the servant was negligent, regard being had to the 
 plaintiff's position at the time of the injury, and the 
 knowledge which the servant had of the possibility of 
 injury to the plaintiff by reason of the closing of the 
 door. On the other hand, in Richardson v. Metropoli- 
 tan By., 1 a plaintiff, having entered a carriage, permitted 
 his hand to remain upon the door for some half a 
 minute, and the defendant's porter, having first called, 
 " Take your seats," closed the door, and injured the 
 plaintiff's hand ; and it was held that the defendant 
 was not liable, the porter having closed the door in the 
 ordinary exercise of his duty after due warning, and the 
 sole cause of the injury being the plaintiffs negligence 
 in permitting his hand to remain on the door after he 
 had entered the carriage. So, in Jackson v. M. Ry., 2 
 it was held, in the House of Lords, affirming the Court 
 of Appeal and reversing the Common Pleas, that, 
 where the plaintiff had been injured by reason of having 
 risen in an overcrowded carriage to prevent the entry of 
 more passengers, the door being hastily closed by the 
 defendant's servant upon the plaintiff's hand, the rail- 
 way was not liable. In Richardson's and in Jackson's 
 cases, the injury was done by an act of a servant in the 
 course of his duty, and not negligently performed, and 
 injury resulted to the passenger only because he himself 
 was negligent ; while in Fordham's case the servant 
 closed the door upon a passenger in the act of entering 
 the car ; and in Davidson's case there was evidence 
 from which the jury might properly, and did, in fact, 
 
 1 L. R. 3 C. P. 374. 
 
 * L. R. 10 C. P. 49, 2 C. P. D. 125, 3 App. Cas. 193.
 
 CAR DOORS. 279 
 
 find that the servant ought to have seen the position in 
 which the plaintiff was standing. The distinction, 
 therefore, is that the passenger is entitled to recover for 
 such injuries when they result from carelessness on the 
 part of the railway's servant, the passenger not con- 
 tributing to the accident by any imprudent act on his 
 part. 
 
 269. A passenger has the right to assume that the 
 doors of the car are reasonably secure, thus, in Gee v. 
 M. Ry., 1 the plaintiff, having risen from his seat in the 
 carriage for the purpose of looking at the signal lights 
 upon the line, put his hand on the bar across the win- 
 dow ; the door flew open, and the plaintiff fell out and 
 was injured, and it was held that he was entitled to 
 recover, for he might reasonably suppose that the door 
 had been properly shut by the defendant's servants, and 
 that he could with safety lean upon it. So, in W. M. 
 R. R v. Stanley, 2 a passenger was held entitled to 
 recover for injuries received in attempting to close the 
 door of his car while passing through a tunnel, the 
 railway having omitted to light the car, and the open 
 door inconveniencing the plaintiff and the other pas- 
 sengers in the car by its admission of smoke and cin- 
 ders. On the other hand, in Adams v. L. & Y. Ry., 3 
 the door of the carriage in which the plaintiff was 
 riding would not remain shut while the train was in 
 motion, but there was room enough for the plaintiff to 
 sit away from the door, and the weather was good. 
 The plaintiff, having shut the door three times, at- 
 tempted, for the fourth time, to close it within three 
 minutes of the time of arrival of the train at a station, 
 and, in so doing, he fell out and was injured. Judg- 
 ment was entered for the defendant upon the ground 
 
 1 L. R. 8 Q. B. 161. * 61 Md. 266, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206. 
 
 » L. R. 4 C. P. 739.
 
 2S0 DISORDERLY PASSENGERS. 
 
 that, as the inconvenience to the plaintiff from the open 
 door was slight, and the peril in attempting to close it 
 •was considerable, the injury resulting from that attempt 
 was caused solely by his own carelessness ; but in the 
 later case of Gee v. M. Ry., 1 Adams v. L. & Y. Ry., is 
 commented upon, and the application to the facts of 
 that case of the doctrine as above stated questioned. 
 
 270. It is both the right and the duty of the railway 
 to remove from its cars disorderly passengers whose 
 misconduct endangers the safety of their fellow-passen- 
 gers ; 2 but the duty of the railway to its passengers does 
 not require it to maintain a police force, either at its 
 stations or on its cars, for the supjoression of riots, or the 
 prevention of any possible breach of the peace ; thus, 
 in P., N., N. C. R. R. v. Hinds, 3 the plaintiff, a female, 
 having been injured in the course of a fight between a 
 number of drunken men, who, at a station, had forced 
 themselves into the defendant's car and usurped the 
 control thereof, it was held that the defendant was not 
 liable, for its duty was to provide servants enough for 
 the ordinary conduct of its transportation business, but 
 not to provide police, and the conductor, not having 
 voluntarily admitted the creators of the disturbance, 
 but having been overpowered by them, the defendant 
 was not to be held liable. On the same principle it 
 was held in Cannon v. M., G. W. Ry., 4 that a railway 
 is not liable for injuries caused by the disorderly con- 
 duct of a mob who had taken possession of a station 
 platform. So also, in Putnam v. B. & S. A. R. R., 5 a 
 railway was held not to be responsible for a wilful 
 assault by one passenger causing the death of another 
 
 1 L. R. 8 Q. B. 161. 
 
 7 Ry. v. Valleley, 32 Ohio St. 345 ; P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Vandyne. 57 Ind. 
 576 ; R, P. & C. R. R. v. McDonald, 68 Ind. 316 ; Leraont v. W. & G. R. R., 
 I Mackey (D. C.) 180, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 263. 
 
 1 53 Penna. St. 512. * 6 Irish C. L. 199. 6 55 N. Y. 108.
 
 DISORDERLY PASSENGERS. 281 
 
 passenger, where the servants of the railway had no 
 knowledge of the character or disposition of the wrong- 
 doer, and no reason to apprehend that he would com- 
 mit an act of violence. Nor is the railway liable to a 
 passenger for the value of securities of which that pas- 
 senger is robbed by violence as he is leaving the train 
 on its arrival at a station. 1 Nevertheless, the duty of 
 the railway requires it to protect its passengers from 
 the disorderly acts of other passengers and of strangers, 
 provided that the parties causing the disorder are not 
 sufficiently numerous or strong to overthrow the au- 
 thority of the railway servants ; for in such a case the 
 servants are negligent in not removing or controlling 
 the disorderly persons ; thus, in P. & C. E-. R. v. Pil- 
 low, 2 where the plaintiff had been injured in the course 
 of a fight in defendant's car between two other passen- 
 gers, defendant's servants negligently omitting to restore 
 order, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to 
 recover. 3 Upon the same principle the railway is liable 
 to a passenger, who, while alighting at a station is 
 pushed off the steps of the car by a crowd of passengers. 4 
 The railway is also liable for injuries done to its pas- 
 sengers by the wrongful and wilful acts of its servants, 
 if the railway has been negligent, either in its selection 
 or retention of the wrongdoer in the service ; or if it 
 has subsequently ratified the servant's unauthorized act 
 by retaining him in the service, and a fortiori promoting 
 him, after his wrongful act has been brought to the 
 
 " Weeks v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 72 N. Y. 50. 
 
 2 76 Penna. St. 510. 
 
 3 See also, Flint v. N. & N. Y. T. Co., 34 Conn. 554 ; Britton v. A. & C. R. R., 
 88 N. C. 536, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 391 ; Hendricks v. S. A. R. R., 44 N. 
 Y. Sup. Ct. 8 ; N. O., St. L. & C. R. R. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200 ; King v. O. & 
 M. Ry. (U. S. C. C. Ind.), 18 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 386. 
 
 * Treat v. B. & L. R. R., 131 Mass. 371, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 423 ; Ho- 
 gan v. S. E. Ry., 28 L. T. N. S. 271.
 
 282 SUDDEN JOLTS, ETC. 
 
 knowledge of liis superior officer. But if the railway 
 has not expressly or impliedly authorized or ratified 
 the act, or been negligent in the selection or retention 
 of the wrongdoer, it cannot be held liable for his wilful 
 act. , 
 
 271. The railway is likewise liable for injuries to 
 passengers in its cars caused by a sudden jolting of the 
 car in starting or coming to a stop, and in such cases it 
 is for the jury to say whether or not the plaintiff was 
 contributorily negligent in rising from his seat before 
 the car had stopped. 1 It is the duty of the railway to 
 provide seats for the passengers whom it undertakes to 
 carry; 2 but the mere failure to provide a seat for a 
 passenger is not such negligence as will render a rail- 
 way responsible to the passenger, if he, while standing, 
 be thrown down without negligence upon the part of 
 the railway. 3 It has, however, been held that the rail- 
 way is liable to a passenger, who, having entered a 
 crowded car, and no seat being obtainable, rode upon 
 the platform, and was injured while upon the platform ; 4 
 but these decisions seem to be open to criticism upon 
 the grounds stated in the next section. 
 
 XI. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PASSENGERS. 
 
 272. It is well settled that a passenger who, volun- 
 tarily and unnecessarily, places himself in a position of 
 
 1 N. J. R. R. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341 ; C. & P. S. Ferry Co. v. Monaghan, 
 10 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 46 ; W. P. P. Ry. v. Whipple, 5 Id. 68 ; 
 Barden v. B. C. & F. R. R., 121 Mass. 436 ; Worthen v. G. T. Ry., 125 Id. 99 ; 
 Geddes v. M. R. R., 103 Id. 391 ; Spearman v. C. St. R. R., 57 Cal. 432, 8 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 193 ; M. P. R. R. v. Marten, Tex. , 22 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 409; Dougherty v. M. R. R., 81 Mo. 325, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 497. 
 
 2 L. & N. R. R. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1. 
 
 3 Burton v. W. J. Ferry Co., 114 U. 8. 474. 
 
 * Werle v. L. I. R. R.,98 N. Y. 650 ; Colegrove v. H. & N. H. R. R., 20 Id 
 492 ; Willis v. L. I. R. R., 34 Id. 670 ; Collins v. A. & S. R. R., 12 Barb. 492.
 
 passenger's negligence. 283 
 
 danger cannot hold the railway responsible for injuries 
 of which his position is the efficient cause, as, for instance, 
 where his injuries result from his crossing the line in 
 front of a moving train whose approach is known to him ; x 
 or from his returning, after a successful escape, to a 
 burning car in order to recover a valise which had been 
 left behind ; 2 or from his riding on an engine, 3 or from 
 his riding on a frieght car instead of in the caboose, and 
 while there incurring increased danger in adjusting a 
 falling load of timber ; 4 or from his walking on the track 
 in a railway yard; 5 or from his crossing on the plat- 
 form of a car of a freight train, apparently ready to 
 start, in order to reach the passenger train, and without 
 notice to those in charge of the freight train ; 6 or from 
 his going on the line, after alighting from a train at a 
 station and standing for a necessary purpose, and with- 
 out notice to the railway servants on the track behind 
 freight cars which are liable to be moved ; 7 or from his 
 crawling under and between the wheels of a freight 
 train in leaving a railway station; 8 or from his riding 
 on the platform of a moving car before the train comes 
 to a stop; 9 but as before stated, it has been held that 
 
 1 B. & O. E. R. v. State, 60 Md. 449 ; Falkner v. G. S. & W. Ry., 5 I. C. L. 
 213. 
 
 2 Hay v. G. W. Ry., 37 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 456. 
 
 8 Robertson v. E. Ry., 22 Barb. 91 ; B. & P. R. R. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 439 ; 
 Rucker v. M. P. R. R., 61 Tex. 499, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 245 ; Daggett 
 v. I. C. R. R., 34 Iowa 284; c/. W. St. L. & P. Ry. v. Shacklet, 105 111. 364, 12 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 166. 
 
 4 Sherman v. H. & St. J. R. R., 72 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589; 
 Player v. B., C, R. &. A. R. R., 62 Iowa 723, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 112. 
 
 5 Henry v. St. L., K. C & N. Ry., 76 Mo. 288, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 136 ; Hallihan v. II. & St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 117 ; 
 Johnson v. B. & M. R. R., 125 Mass. 75. 
 
 6 C, B. & Q. Ry. v. Dewey, 26 111. 255 ; Lewis v. B. & O. R. R., 38 Md. 588 ; 
 Gahagan v. B. & L. R. R., 1 Allen 187. 
 
 i Van Schaick v, H. R. R. R., 43 N. Y. 527. 
 
 8 M. & C. R. R. v. Copeland, 61 Ala. 376 ; C. R. R. v. Dixon, 42 Ga. 327. 
 
 9 Secor v. T., P. & W. Ry., 10 Fed. Rep. 15; I. C. Ry. v. Green, 81 111, 19;
 
 284 passenger's negligence. 
 
 the failure of the railway to perform its duty of provid- 
 ing the passenger with a seat will excuse his contribu- 
 tory negligence in riding on the platform, 1 yet this 
 doctrine cannot be regarded as reasonable, for if the 
 passenger cannot obtain a seat he may stand within the 
 car, or he may refuse to proceed on the journey, and 
 may hold the railway responsible for the damages re- 
 sulting from its breach of contract; but injuries result- 
 ing primarily from his voluntarily putting himself in 
 a position of such obvious danger as that of riding on 
 the platform of a car in motion cannot be said to have 
 been proximately caused by the railway's failure to pro- 
 vide him with a seat. 
 
 273. It is also contributory negligence in the passen- 
 ger to put his head or arm out of the window of a car 
 in motion. 2 On the other hand, in N. J. E. R. v. Ken- 
 nard, 3 the railway was held to be negligent because it 
 did not so bar its windows as to physically prevent 
 passengers from putting their heads or arms through 
 those windows, but that case is overruled by the later 
 cases in Pennsylvania. In C. & A. R. R. v. Pondrom, 4 
 it was held that the negligence of the passenger in per- 
 mitting his arm to rest on the window sill and to extend 
 outside was slight in comparison with the negligence of 
 the railway in permitting cars on different tracks to be 
 
 Blodgett v. Bartlett, 50 Ga. 353 ; A. G. S. Ry. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 12 ; C. & A. 
 R. R. v. Hoosey, 99 Penna. St. 492; Hickey v. B. & L. R. R., 14 Allen 429; 
 Quinn v. I. C. R. R., 51 111. 495 ; M. & W. R. R. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409 ; P. 
 R. I. & St. L. R. R. v. Coultas, 67 111. 398. 
 
 1 Willis v. L. I. R. R., 34 N. Y. 670; Zemp v. W. & M. R. R., 9 Rich. L. 
 84; Maguire v. M. R. R., 115 Mass. 239. 
 
 2 Todd v. O. C. R. R., 3 Allen 18, 7 Id. 207 ; P. R. R. v. McClurg, 56 Penna. 
 St. 294 ; I. & C. R. R. v. Rutherford, 29 Ind. 83 ; P. & C. R. R. v. Andrews, 39 
 Md. 329 ; Holbrook v. U. & S. R. R., 1 2 N. Y. 236 ; Dun v. S. & R. R. R., 78 Va. 
 645, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 363; L. & N. R. R. v. Siekinge, 5 Bush. (Ky.) 
 1 ; Dale v. D., L. & W. R. R., 73 N. Y. 468. 
 
 8 21 Penna. St. 203. * 51 111. 333,
 
 passenger's negligence. 285 
 
 in such close proximity as to cause the injury for which 
 the plaintiff sued, and that, therefore, under the doc- 
 trine of comparative negligence the plaintiff was entitled 
 to recover. In Spencer v. M. & P. I. C. R. R., 1 Win- 
 ters v. H. & St. J. R. R., 2 and Summers v. C. C. R. R., 3 
 it is held that it is not necessarily contributory negli- 
 gence in a passenger to put his head or arm out of a 
 car window, and that it is for the jury to decide whether 
 or not, under all the circumstances of the particular 
 case, the act is so negligent as to bar his recovery. The 
 right doctrine seems to be that of Todd v. O. C. R. R., 
 and the cases of its class, for the placing by a passenger 
 of any portion of his person outside of the window of a 
 car in motion is so obviously dangerous that adults of 
 average mental capacity instinctively refrain from it. 
 But where the passenger having rested his arm on the 
 sill of the window within the car, it was jostled out and 
 injured by a collision with a freight car which had been 
 negligently left on a siding in such a position that the 
 car carrying the passenger must strike it, the railway 
 was properly held liable. 4 So the railway was held lia- 
 ble where the passenger's arm similarly placed within a 
 street car was jolted out by a collision of that car with 
 another car upon a different track, on a curve which 
 was so sharp that the cars necessarily struck in pass- 
 ing ; 5 - so the railway was held liable where a passenger 
 in a street car while in the act of taking his seat, hav- 
 ing rested his hand on the base of an open window, it 
 was struck by a projecting sewer plank. 6 
 
 274. It is contributory negligence in a passenger to 
 
 1 17 Wise. 487. * 39 Mo. 468. 
 
 » 34 La. An. 139. * Farlow v. Kelly, 108 IT. S. 288. 
 
 6 G. P. Ry. v. Brophy, 105 Penna. St. 38, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 361. 
 • r>ahlberg v. M. St. Ry., 32 Minn. 404, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 202. See 
 also Dickinson v. P., H. & N. W. R. R., 18 N, W. Rep. (Mich.) 553.
 
 286 passenger's negligence. 
 
 ride in a baggage, or other car, not intended for the 
 carriage of passengers, save with the consent of the 
 railway, 1 provided, of course, that the position of the 
 passenger was a contributing cause of his injury, and 
 was, in itself, so dangerous a place that a man of ordi- 
 nary prudence would not have voluntarily occupied it 
 under ordinary circumstances. Baggage cars and lug- 
 gage vans are not primarily intended for the carriage of 
 passengers. It is, in case of accident to the train, 
 dangerous to be in them, not only because they are in 
 general coupled to the engine drawing the train, and 
 preceding the passenger cars, but also because, in case 
 of derailment or collision, the boxes and trunks in the 
 baggage car are violently thrown about. It is, therefore, 
 not reasonable to hold the railway liable to one whose 
 injuries have been caused by his imprudence in volun- 
 tarily riding in such a car. It is, of course, not con- 
 tributory negligence in a passenger to ride in a pas- 
 senger car other than that in which he has been assigned 
 to a seat. 2 
 
 275. If the passenger assumes a position of danger at 
 the invitation of a servant of the railway, or under an 
 express or implied representation by a servant of the 
 railway that he may safely occupy the position, the 
 railway will, in general, be held liable for the injuries 
 resulting therefrom ; 3 thus, in B. & O. R. R. v. State, to 
 
 1 H. & T. C. R. R. v. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 396 ; 
 K. C. R. R. v. Thomas, 79 Ky. 160, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 79 ; P. R. R. v. 
 Langdon, 92 Penna. St. 21, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 87 ; P. & R. I. R. R. ». 
 Lane, 83 111. 448; Higgins v. H. & St. J. R. R., 36 Mo. 418 ; c/. Watson v. N. 
 Ry., 24 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 98 ; Jacobus v. St. P. & C. Ry., 20 Minn. 125. 
 
 * Penna. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451. 
 
 5 O'Donnell v. A. V. R. R., 59 Penna. St. 239; Dunn v. G. T. R. R., 58 Me. 
 187 ; Edgerton v. N. Y. C. R. R., 39 X. Y. 227 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Erwin, 
 Tenn. , 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 465 ; I. & St. L. R. R. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 
 291 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Kelley, 92 Ind. 371, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1 ; Pool 
 v. C. R. R., 56 Wise. 227 ; St. L., I. M. & S. R. R. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 198 ; G. R. R. & B. Co. v. McCurdy, 45 Ga. 288 ;
 
 passenger's negligence. 287 
 
 use of Mahone, 1 and in Warren v. F. R. R., 2 the rail- 
 way was held liable to passengers who, upon the invi- 
 tation of and in company with a station master, while 
 crossing the line to enter a car, were struck by an en- 
 gine moving upon an intervening track. So in P. R. 
 R. v. McCloskey, 3 the railway was held liable to a pas- 
 senger who was injured by reason of his obedience to 
 specific instructions of the railway's servants, requiring 
 him to place himself in a particular car, although those 
 specific instructions were at variance with the railway's 
 general regulations. So in C, C, C. & I. R. R. v. Man- 
 son, 4 L. & N. R. R. v. Kelly, 5 and in Mclntyre v. N. 
 Y. C. R. R., 6 railways were held liable to passengers 
 who were injured while passing from one car to another 
 of a train in motion, under the direction of the con- 
 ductor. So in N. & C. R. R. v. Erwin, 7 the railway 
 was held liable to one, who, having arrived at a station 
 too late for his train, got upon an engine at the invita- 
 tion of the station master, and while journeying on the 
 line in the engine for the purpose of overtaking his 
 train, was injured by the negligence of servants of the 
 railway. So in St. L., I. M. & S. R. R. v. Cantrell, 8 
 the railway was held liable to a passenger who, at the 
 suggestion of the conductor, jumped from the platform 
 of a slowly moving train and was injured. 9 So in 
 
 Lambeth v. N. C. R. R., 66 N. C. 494 ; Filer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 59 N. 
 Y. 351 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Penna. St. 139 ; Colegrove v. N. Y. & H. & N. Y. & 
 N. H. Ry., 20 N. Y. 492 ; C, C, C & I. R. R. v. Manson, 30 Ohio St. 451 ; Water- 
 bury v. N. Y. C & H. R. R. R, 17 Fed. Rep. 671 ; C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Sykes, 
 96 111. 162, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 254. 
 
 1 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 202. J 8 Allen 227. 
 
 * 23 Penna. St. 526. * 30 Ohio St. 451. 
 
 6 92 Ind. 371, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 1. • 37 N. Y. 287. 
 
 7 Tenn. , 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 465. 
 
 8 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 198. 
 
 9 See also Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R., 59 N. Y. 351 ; G. R. R. v. McCurdv, 45 
 Ga. 288 ; Bucher v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 98 N. Y. 128, 21 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 361.
 
 2S8 servant's invitation. 
 
 Allender v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 1 the railway was held 
 liable to a passenger who was injured while under the 
 direction of the railway conductor, entering a car at 
 rest, but not in position at the usual platform. So in 
 O'Donnell v. A. V. R. R., 2 the railway was held liable 
 to a passenger who was injured while riding in a bag- 
 gage car in violation of a rule of the railway, but with 
 the assent of the conductor of the train. So in C. B. & 
 Q. R. R. v. Sykes, 3 an intending passenger was held not 
 to be necessarily contributory negligent in passing, on 
 the invitation of a conductor, under a freight car which 
 barred his way to the station. 
 
 276. The fact that a servant of the railway invited, 
 or even directed the passenger to occupy a position of 
 danger will not render the railway liable for injuries 
 resulting therefrom, if the danger was so obvious, that 
 a reasonable man would not have obeyed the servant, or 
 accepted his invitation; 4 nor will the railway be liable 
 to a passenger who is injured in alighting at a danger- 
 ous place, because the conductor tells him that pas- 
 sengers sometimes alight there, but does not either invite 
 or command the particular passenger to alight at that 
 point. 5 Nor will the railway be held responsible if the 
 servant was not expressly, or impliedly, authorized to 
 give the invitation. 6 In particular is this the case when 
 the general regulations of the railway for the protection 
 of the passenger forbid him to occupy a position of 
 danger, as, for instance, to ride in the baggage car. On 
 
 1 43 Iowa 276. * 59 Penna. St. 239. 
 
 8 96 111. 162, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 254. 
 
 * Hazzard v. C. B. & Q. R. R-, 1 Biss. 503 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Randolph, 53 
 HI. 510 ; B. & P. R. R. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 439 ; S. W. R. R. v. Singleton, 67 
 Ga. 306, 66 Id. 252 ; S. & N. A. R. R. v. Schaufler, 75 Ala. 136, 21 Am. & Eng 
 R. R. Cas. 405. 
 
 6 C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Hazzard, 26 111. 373. 
 
 8 L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Miles, 40 Ark. 298 ; Huff v. A. V. R. R., 91 Penna 
 St. 458 ; Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Id. 210 ; P. R. R. v. Landgon, 92 Id. 21.
 
 LICENSE TO DISOBEY EULES. 289 
 
 this point Paxson, J., says with great force in P. H. R. 
 v. Langdon, 1 "the rules adopted by railroad companies 
 are a part of their police arrangements. Some of them 
 are for the convenience of the company in the manage- 
 ment of its business. Others are for the comfort of 
 passengers, and yet others have exclusive regard to the 
 safety of passengers. The distinction between them, 
 and the difference in the consequences of their violation 
 is manifest. As an illustration: it would be unreason- 
 able to hold that the violation of the rule against smok- 
 ing could be set up as a defence to an action for personal 
 injuries resulting from the negligence of the company. 
 On the other hand, should a passenger insist upon riding 
 upon the cow-catcher, in the face of a rule prohibiting 
 it, and as a consequence should be injured, I apprehend 
 it would be a good defence to an action againct the 
 company, even though the negligence of the latter's ser- 
 vants was the cause of the collision or other accident, 
 by which the injury was occasioned. And if the pas- 
 senger thus recklessly exposing his life to possible acci- 
 dents were a sane man, more especially if he were a 
 railroad man, it is difficult to see how the knowledge or 
 even the assent of the conductor to his occupying such 
 a position could affect the case. There can be no license 
 to commit suicide. It is true the conductor has the con- 
 trol of the train and may assign passengers their seats, 
 but he may not assign a passenger to a seat on the cow- 
 catcher, a position on the platform, or in the baggage 
 car. This is known to every intelligent man, and appears 
 upon the face of the rule itself. He is expressly re- 
 quired to enforce it, and to prohibit any of the acts re- 
 ferred to, unless it be riding upon the cow-catcher, which 
 is so manifestly dangerous and improper that it has not 
 been deemed necessary to prohibit it. We are unable 
 
 1 02 Penna. St. 21, 28. 
 19
 
 290 passenger's negligence on street cars. 
 
 to see how a conductor, in violation of a known rule of 
 the company, can license a man to occupy a place of 
 danger so as to make the company responsible. It is 
 otherwise as to rules which are intended merely for the 
 convenience of the company or its passengers. It was 
 said by Woodward, J., in Sullivan v. The Railroad 
 Company, 1 'that on the part of the passenger his assent 
 is implied to all the company's reasonable rules and 
 regulations for entering, occupying, and leaving their 
 cars, and if injury befall him by reason of his disregard 
 of regulations, which are necessary to the conduct of the 
 business of the company, the company are not liable in 
 damages, even though the negligence of their servants 
 concurred with his own negligence in causing the mis- 
 chief.' This principle is even broader than the one we 
 are now contending for. We only assert here, that if a 
 passenger wilfully violates a known rule intended for 
 his safety, and is injured in consequence of such viola- 
 tion, he is not entitled to recover damages for such 
 injury." 
 
 277. The conditions of travel on a street car are, of 
 course, different from those on lines of railway whose 
 cars are propelled at the higher rate which the use of 
 steam as a motor makes possible, and it is not necessarily 
 contributory negligence to ride on the platform of a 
 street car ; 2 nor to leave one's seat in a street car and to 
 stand on the rear platform, on which there is an accu- 
 mulation of ice and snow; 3 nor to stand on the front 
 
 1 30 Penna. St. 234. 
 
 2 Meesel v. L. & B. R. R., 8 Allen 234 ; Spooner v. B. C. R. R., 54 N. Y. 230 ; 
 G. P. Ry. v. Walling, 97 Penna. St. 55; Maguire v. M. R. R., 115 Mass. 237 ; 
 Sheridan v. B. & N. R. R., 36 N. Y. 39; Clark v. 8th Ave. R. R., Id. 135; 
 Burns v. B. R. R., 50 Mo. 139 ; Nolan v. B. C. & N. R. R., 87 N. Y. 63, 3 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 463 ; 13th & 15th Sts. P. Ry. v. Boudrou, 92 Penna. St. 480, 
 8 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 244. 
 
 8 Fleck v. U. Ry., 134 Mass. 480, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 372.
 
 DISABLED PASSENGERS. 291 
 
 step of a horse car j 1 nor to get on or off a moving street 
 car; 2 but it has been held to be contributory negligence 
 to attempt to get on the front platform of a moving 
 street car whose step is obviously broken ; 3 or to sit on 
 the railing of the platform of a street car; 4 or to sit on 
 the step of a street car. 5 A street railway is, of course, 
 not liable to a passenger who is injured while standing 
 on the step of the front platform by being jolted off by 
 an ordinary movement of the car. 6 A street railway in 
 operating street cars is not bound to prevent passengers 
 from getting on and off the front platform of a car by 
 guards or fenders, but the absence of such means of 
 protection may properly be considered by the jury in 
 determining whether or not the railway failed in its 
 duty to one who was injured while alighting from the 
 front platform; 7 yet in W. P. P. Ry. v. Gallagher, 8 
 judgment for the plaintiff was reversed by the same 
 court which had decided P. C. P. Ry. v. Hassard, be- 
 cause the judge at the trial left it to the jury to find the 
 railway negligent in failing to provide such guards or 
 fenders. 
 
 278. Where the railway voluntarily accepts as a pas- 
 senger one whose physical disability is apparent, or is 
 made known to its servants, and renders special assist- 
 ance necessary, the railway is negligent if such assist- 
 
 1 W. P. P. Ry. v. Gallagher, 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 413. 
 
 2 G C Ry. v. Mumford, 97 111. 560, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 312 ; McDon- 
 ough v. M. R. R, 137 Mass. 210, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 354; Eppendorf 
 v. B. C. R. R., 69 N. Y. 195. 
 
 8 Dietrich v. B. & H. S. Ry-, 58 Md. 347, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 115. 
 
 * Ginna v. S. A. R. R., 67 N. Y. 596 ; Downey v. Hendrie, 46 Mich. 498, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 386. 
 
 * Wills v. L. & B. Ry., 129 Mass. 351, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 27. 
 
 « F. S. & G. St. F. R. R. v. Hayes, 97 N. Y. 259, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 
 358. 
 
 7 P. C. P. Ry. v. Hassard, 75 Penna. St. 367. 
 
 8 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 413.
 
 292 PASSENGERS ON FREIGHT CARS. 
 
 ance be not afforded. 1 It lias been held that where the 
 physical condition of the person injured is at the time 
 of the injury such that the injuries caused by negligence 
 on the part of the railway are thereby aggravated, the 
 railway is not liable for that aggravation ; 2 but the more 
 correct view seems to be that taken in those cases which 
 hold that a defendant is equally responsible for injuries 
 inflicted by his negligence, and for an aggravation of 
 those injuries by reason of the impaired physical con- 
 dition of the person injured prior to and at the time of 
 the injury. 3 
 
 279. It is the duty of the railway, whatever be the 
 means of conveyance which it uses, to provide every- 
 thing which is essential to the safety of the passenger 
 and reasonably consistent with the transportation of 
 the passenger by the particular means of conveyance 
 so used ; thus one who has been accepted as a passenger 
 to be carried in a freight train is entitled to the same 
 character, though not to the same degree, of protection 
 as if he were carried in a passenger train. 4 
 
 280. The stringent obligations which the law imposes 
 upon common carriers of passengers are not applicable 
 to individuals occasionally carrying passengers gratui- 
 
 1 T. W. & W. R. R. v. Baddely, 54 111. 19 ; C. C. I. R. R. r. Powell, 40 Ind. 
 37 ; Milliniann v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 66 N. Y. 642 ; Sheridan v. B. C. R. 
 R., 36 N. Y. 39 ; N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v. Statham, 42 Miss. 607. 
 
 * P. P. C. Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo. 344. 
 
 3 Allison v. C. & N. W. Ry., 42 Iowa 274; Brown v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 54 
 Wise. 342, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 444 ; Fitzpatrick v. G. W. Ry., 12 Up. 
 Can. (Q. B.) 645 ; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 Wise. 584. 
 
 4 Murch v. C. R. R., 29 N. H. 9 ; C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Hazzard, 26 111. 373 ; I 
 R. R. v. Beaver, 41 Md. 493 ; I. & St. L. R. R. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ; C. & 
 G. R. R. v. Fay, 16 111. 568; Edgerton v. N. Y. & H. R. R. R., 39 N. Y. 227 ; 
 Dunn v. G. T.Ry., 58 Me. 187. 
 
 As to the restricted statutory liability of railways in Mississippi to passen- 
 gers on freight trains, see Code 1880, \ 1054 ; Perkins v. C, St. L. & N. O. R. 
 R., 60 Miss. 726, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 242.
 
 SPECIAL CARRIERS. 203 
 
 tously; 1 nor to railway contractors, who, in the course 
 of constructing a line, occasionally carry passengers for 
 hire; 2 nor are statutory regulations for the running of 
 trains which have been enacted for the protection of 
 passengers applicable to construction trains run by con- 
 tractors upon an uncompleted line. 3 
 
 1 Moffatt v. Bateman, L. R. 3 P. C. 115. 
 ' Shoemaker v. Kingsbury, 12 Wall. 369. 
 3 Griggs v. Houston, 104 U. S. 553.
 
 294 RAILWAY SERVANTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED 
 IN THE FIFTH CATEGORY, THAT IS, THE SERVANTS OF THE 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 I. The general principle determining the liability of the railway to its 
 servants. 
 II. The duty of the railway in its original construction and subsequent 
 maintenance in repair of its line, rolling stock, and appliances. 
 
 III. The duty of the railway in its selection and retention of servants. 
 
 IV. The duty of the railway in its operation of its line. 
 
 V. The liability of railways to their servants for the negligence of other 
 
 servants. 
 VI. The servant's implied undertaking to take upon himself the risks of 
 
 the service. 
 VII. Minor servants. 
 VIII. The servant's contributory negligence. 
 IX. Statutes affecting the liability of railways to their servants. 
 
 I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE DETERMINING THE LIA- 
 BILITY OF THE RAILWAY TO ITS SERVANTS. 
 
 The railway is liable to its servants only for negligence. 
 
 281. In the term "servants" there are included all 
 of the railway's officers and employes of every grade 
 who are engaged in the operation of its line. I use the 
 name " servant " rather than " employe," not only be- 
 cause it is of larger import, but also because the relation 
 of " master and servant " has long been a recognized 
 topic in the law, and the use of the term " servant " 
 renders more easy the reference to the many adjudged 
 cases which deal with that relation. The nature and 
 extent of the liability of railways for injuries to their 
 servants in the course of railway operations is determin-
 
 RAILWAY SERVANTS. 295 
 
 able upon the general principles which are applicable 
 to the relation of servants to other masters acting in 
 their individual capacities. Masters do not insure the 
 safety of their servants ; and they are liable to them 
 only for negligence, that is, for a non-performance of 
 duty causing injury to the servants. The relation be- 
 tween masters and their servants being purely voluntary 
 and contractual, the nature and extent of the master's 
 duty is necessarily dependent upon the terms, whether 
 express or implied, of the contract of service. If there 
 be an express contract of service defining the master's 
 liability, its terms must govern, but in the absence of 
 any such contract the implied obligation of the master 
 is only that he shall not be negligent in his personal 
 participation in the work, nor in the personal participa- 
 tion in the work of any one whom he has put in his 
 place to represent him, and, in the exercise of an uncon- 
 trolled discretion, to conduct the business for him ; nor 
 in the provision of the machinery and appliances to be 
 operated by the servant, nor in failing to repair ma- 
 chinery and appliances which, although originally sound, 
 have become dangerously defective, and whose condition 
 either is, or ought to be, known to him ; nor in the 
 original selection, or subsequent retention in the service, 
 of servants whose incompetency either is, or ought to be, 
 known to him. This being the extent of the master's 
 implied obligation to the servant, it follpws, not only 
 that the servant must be held by reason of the voluntary 
 character of his engagement in the service, to have as- 
 sumed the risks of danger to himself necessarily incident 
 to the character of the service for which he engaged, in- 
 cluding the risks of the negligence of his fellow-servants, 
 but also that the servant cannot hold the master liable 
 for an injury to the happening of which his, the ser- 
 vant's, negligence has contributed. The general prin-
 
 296 GENERAL KULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 ciples tlms stated are fully supported by the authorities. 
 The leading case is Priestley v. Fowler, 1 where, in an 
 action by a servant against his master, a butcher, for 
 injuries received by the breaking down of an overloaded 
 van, after verdict for the plaintiff' judgment was arrested 
 on the ground, as stated by Abinger, C. B., that " from 
 the mere relation of master and servant no contract, 
 and, therefore, no duty can be implied on the part of 
 the master to cause the servant to be safely and securely 
 carried, or to make the master liable for damage to the 
 servant arising from any vice or imperfection unknown 
 to the master in the carriage, or in the mode of loading 
 and conducting it ;" and in elucidation of this general 
 principle, the Lord Chief Baron said, the master " is, 
 no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant, 
 in the course of his employment to the best of his judg- 
 ment, information, and belief. The servant is not 
 bound to risk his safety in the service of his master, 
 and may, if he thinks fit, decline any service in which he 
 reasonably apprehends injury to himself; and in most 
 of the cases in which injury may be incurred, if not in 
 all, he is just as likely to be acquainted with the proba- 
 bility and extent of it as the master. * * * In fact, 
 to allow this sort of action to prevail would be an en- 
 couragement to the servant to omit that diligence and 
 caution which he is in duty bound to exercise in behalf 
 of his master to protect him against the misconduct, or 
 negligence, of others who serve him, and which diligence 
 and caution, while they protect the master are a much 
 better security against any injury the servant may sus- 
 tain by the negligence of others engaged under the same 
 master than any recourse against his master for damages 
 could afford." So in Wilson v. Merry, 2 where the 
 
 1 3 M. & W. 1. ' L. E. 1 Sc. & Div. 326.
 
 RAILWAY SERVANTS. 297 
 
 owners and operators of a mine were sought to be held 
 liable for the death of a miner, Cairns, L. C., said : " the 
 master is not, and cannot be, liable to his servant unless 
 there be negligence on the part of the master in that 
 which he, the master, has contracted, or undertaken, with 
 his servant to do. The master has not contracted nor 
 undertaken to execute in person the work connected with 
 his business. The result of an obligation on the master 
 personally to execute the work connected with his busi- 
 ness, in place of being beneficial, might be disastrous to 
 his servants, for the master might be incompetent, per- 
 sonally, to perform the work. At all events, a servant 
 may choose for himself between serving a master who 
 does, and a master who does not, attend in person to his 
 business. But what the master is, in my opinion, bound 
 to his servant to do, in the event of his not personally 
 superintending and directing the work, is to select 
 proper and competent persons to do so, and to furnish 
 them with adequate material and resources for the work. 
 When he has done this he has, in my opinion, done all 
 that he is bound to do." So in Ormond v. Holland, 1 
 where the defendants were builders and the plaintiff 
 was a servant, who, while ascending a ladder at a build- 
 ing in course of construction by the defendants, was 
 injured by the breaking of one of the rounds of the ladder 
 and a fall therefrom, there being no proof that the de- 
 fective condition of the ladder had been in any way 
 brought home to the knowledge of the defendants, 
 Campbell, C. J., directed a verdict for the defendants, 
 and a rule to enter the verdict for the plaintiff was dis- 
 charged, Campbell, C. J., saying : " we all agree that 
 the action is not maintainable. There was no evidence 
 of personal negligence; the builders used due and rea- 
 
 1 El. Bl. & El. 102, 96 E. C. L.
 
 298 GENERAL RULE OF LIABILITY. 
 
 sonuble care to have competent servants ; and I think 
 they used more than ordinary care, and took extraor- 
 dinary precaution, that the plant should be sufficient. 
 There being no evidence of personal negligence, either 
 by interference in the work, or in hiring the servants, 
 or in choosing the implements, I am inclined to take 
 some blame to myself for encouraging this application 
 to the court; for, according to both decided cases 
 and to principle, it must fail." So in Warner v. E. Ry., 1 
 where it was sought to hold the railway liable for in- 
 juries to a servant caused by the fall of a bridge which 
 had been carefully constructed and frequently inspected, 
 judgment for the plaintiff was reversed in error, Bacon, 
 J., saying, inter alia : " the only ground which the law 
 recognizes of liability on the part of the defendant is 
 that which arises from personal negligence, or such want 
 of care and prudence in the management of its affairs, 
 or in the selection of its agents or appliances, the omis- 
 sion of which occasioned the injury, and which, if they 
 had been exercised, would have averted it." All of the 
 cases which are cited in this chapter serve to illustrate 
 the proposition as stated by Bacon, J., for, however 
 widely they may differ in their finding of that which 
 constitutes negligence under any particular state of facts, 
 they agree in holding negligence on the part of the rail- 
 way to be the test of its liability. 
 
 282. The liability of the railway to its servants being 
 dependent upon its negligence, it is not liable for in- 
 juries to them resulting from inevitable accidents, such 
 as the fall of a bridge which had been skilfully con- 
 structed and carefully inspected ; 2 nor the explosion of 
 the boiler of an engine from causes which could not 
 
 1 39 N. Y. 4G8 J Warner v. E. Ry., 39 N. Y. 468.
 
 NON-LIABILITY FOR ACCIDENT. 299 
 
 have been detected nor guarded against ; * nor the 
 breaking of a rail by frost ; 2 nor the throwing of a 
 mail bag by a mail agent from a passing train upon a 
 station platform, when the railway had no reason to ex- 
 pect that the bag would be thrown upon the platform ; 3 
 nor the formation of a poisonous substance by the de- 
 cay of the grease in an axle-box, and the communica- 
 tion of that poison to a cut in the servant's hand, the 
 railway having no reason to anticipate that any poison- 
 ous substance would result from the decay of the grease ; 4 
 nor the sudden reversal of the engine and stoppage of 
 a train of construction cars to avoid a collision with 
 cattle on the line, thereby throwing off a laborer who 
 was upon the last car of the train ; 5 nor the movement 
 of a car upon a siding by the shifting of another car on 
 to the siding, thereby killing a servant who was stand- 
 ing behind it, when the other servants, who were doing 
 the shifting, had no reason to suppose that any one 
 would be injured by the movement of that car; 6 nor 
 the fall of a brakeman from a moving train when the 
 proof fails to show why he fell ; 7 nor the derailment of 
 a train by a misplaced switch, the evidence not showing 
 when, how, or by whom the switch was misplaced ; 8 
 nor a collision between a hand-car and a train, which 
 was caused by the fact that the foreman's watch was 
 slower than that of the conductor of the colliding train ; 9 
 
 1 I. C. Ey. v. Houck, 72 111. 285 ; T. W. & W. Ey. v. Moore, 77 Id. 217 ; I 
 B. & W. Ey. v. Toy, 91 Id. 474. 
 
 2 Henry v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 49 Mich. 495, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 110. 
 
 3 Muster v. C. M. & St. P. Ey., 61 Wise. 325, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 113. 
 * Kitteringham v. S. C. & P. Ey., 62 Iowa 285, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 14. 
 5 M. P. Ey. v. Haley, 25 Kans. 35, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 594; cf. Jeffrey 
 
 v K. & D. M. E. E., 56 Iowa 546, 5 Am. & Eng E. E. Cas. 568. 
 
 a Hallihan v. II. &St. J. E. E., 71 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 117. 
 
 7 Corcoran v. B. & A. R. E., 133 Mass. 507; P. & E. E. E. v. Schertle, 97 
 Penna. St. 450, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 158. 
 
 8 Tinney v. B. & A. E. E., 62 Barb. 218. 
 
 9 Weger v. P H. E., 55 Penna. St. 460.
 
 300 DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION, ETC. 
 
 nor the slipping of a servant from the step as Le was 
 climbing on a moving engine to make a coupling. * 
 
 283. As the liability of the railway to its servants is 
 dependent upon the fact of its negligence, it is bound 
 to its servants to exercise in its construction and in its 
 maintenance in repair of its line, rolling stock and ap- 
 pliances of labor, in its operation of its line, in the 
 conduct of its business, and in its selection of its ser- 
 vants of every rank, that degree of care which will 
 tend to secure its servants' safety to as great an extent 
 as is compatible with the conduct of an essentially haz- 
 ardous business by the use of human instrumentalities. 
 
 II. THE DUTY OF THE RAILWAY TO ITS SERVANTS IN THE 
 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT MAINTE- 
 NANCE IN REPAIR OF ITS LINE, ROLLING STOCK, MA- 
 CHINERY AND APPLIANCES. 
 
 The duty of the railway to its servants requires the exercise of care on 
 its part in the original construction, inspection, and maintenance in 
 repair of its line, rolling stock, and apj)liances. 
 
 284. Railways do not warrant to their servants the 
 safe condition of their line, nor the security of their 
 appliances and machinery, and they guarantee only that 
 due care shall be used in constructing and in keeping 
 in repair, and in operating the line, appliances and 
 machinery. 2 Ruger, C. J., in Probst v. Delama- 
 
 1 Jackson v. K. C, L. & S. K. R. R., 31 Kans. 761, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 178. 
 
 * Clark v. Holmes, 7 H. & N. 937 ; Williams v. Clough, 3 Id. 258 ; Murphy 
 v. Crossan, 98 Penna. St. 495 ; Johnson v. Bruner, 61 Id. 58 ; Murray v. 
 Phillips, 35 L. T. 477 ; Hough v. T. P. Ry., 100 U. S. 213 ; Ford v. F. R. R., 
 110 Mass. 241 ; Holmes v. Worthington, 2 F. & F. 533 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Orr, 
 84 Ind. 50, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 94 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46 ; L. S. 
 & M. S. Ry. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440 ; Umback v. L. S. & M. S. Iy., 83 Ind. 
 191, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 98 ; Gates?;. S. M. Ry , 28 Minn. IK, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 237 ; Cooper v. C. R. R., 44 Iowa 134 ; Wedgwood v. C. & N.
 
 DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION, ETC. 301 
 
 ter, 1 thus states the rule : " the duty of the master to fur- 
 nish safe, suitable, and sound tools, machinery and appli- 
 ances, for the use of the servant in the performance of 
 the work of the master, and to keep them in repair, is 
 not an absolute one, and is satisfied by the exercise of 
 reasonable care and prudence on the part of the master 
 in the manufacture, selection, and repair of such ap- 
 pliances. * * * Yet, when the master has exercised all 
 of the care and caution which a prudent man would 
 take for the safety and protection of his own person, the 
 law does not hold him liable for the consequences of a 
 defect which could not be discovered by careful inspec- 
 tion, or the application of appropriate tests to determine 
 its existence." 
 
 285. Railways are not bound to their servants to pro- 
 vide the best possible appliances, but they are bound only 
 to supply such appliances as are in use by well managed 
 railways, and which they have skilfully constructed 
 and carefully maintained in repair. 2 Miller, J., thus 
 puts it in Marsh v. Chickering, 3 "the rule is that the 
 master does not owe to his servants the duty to furnish 
 
 W. Ry., 44 Wise. 44 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Asbury, 84 111. 429 ; Kain v. Smith, 
 80 N. Y. 458 ; Howd v. M. C. R. R.. 50 Miss. 178 ; Batterson v. C. & G. T. 
 Ry., 49 Mich. 184, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 123 ; Wonder v. B. & O. R. R., 32 
 Md. 411 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Shannon, 43 111. 338 ; M. R. & L. E. R. R. v. Bar- 
 ber, 5 Ohio St. 541 ; Probst v. Delamater, 100 N. Y. 266. 
 
 1 100 N. Y. 266, 272. 
 
 * Brown v. A. C. S. & M. Co., 3 H. & C. 511 ; M. C. & C. Co. v. McEnery, 91 
 Penna. St. 185 ; L. R. & F. S. R. R. v. Duffey, 35 Ark. 602 ; Wonder v. B. & O. 
 R. R., 32 Md. 411 ; King v. B. & W. R. R., 9 Cush. 112 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. 
 McCormick, 74 Ind. 440 (qualifying St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Valirius, 56 Id. 
 511) ; McGinnis v. C S. B. Co., 49 Mich. 466, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 135 ; 
 Schall v. Cole, 107 Penna. St. 1 ; Cooper v. C. R. R., 44 Iowa 134; P. & C. R. 
 R. v. Sentmayer, 92 Penna. St. 275 ; Cagney v. H. & St. J. R. R., 69 Mo. 416 ; 
 T. W. & W. Ry. v. Fredericks, 71 111. 294 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Asbury, 84 Id. 
 429 ; Smith v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 19 N. Y. 127 ; Disher v. N. Y. C. & H. R. 
 R. R., 94 N. Y. 622, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 233 ; Burke v. Witherbee, 98 
 N. Y. 562. 
 
 » 101 N. Y. 396, 400.
 
 302 DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION, ETC. 
 
 the best known or conceivable appliances ; be is simply 
 required to furnish such as are reasonably safe and suit- 
 able; such as a prudent man would furnish if his own 
 life were exposed to the danger that would result from 
 unsuitable or unsafe appliances." As the duty of a 
 railway to its servants does not require it to provide the 
 best possible appliances, nor to insure its servants against 
 the ordinary dangers of the service, the railway is not 
 liable to freight brakemen because the bridges over ita 
 line are not sufficiently high to permit brakemen to 
 stand safely on the roofs of cars moving under such 
 bridges; 1 nor because its line is not ballasted, or is inter- 
 sected with ditches ; 2 nor because its switch frogs are 
 not blocked ; 3 nor because it has delayed for any length 
 of time to repair a car which is not in use, and which 
 has not been left in a position of danger; 4 nor because 
 it has not an uniform coupling for all of its engines 
 and cars; 5 nor because its car platforms are of 
 
 1 P. & C. R. R. v. Sentmayer, 92 Penna. St. 276, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 508 ; Owen v. N. Y. C. R. R., 1 Lans. 108 ; Devitt v. P. R. R., 50 Mo. 302 ; 
 B. & O. R. R. v. Strieker, 51 Md. 47 ; Rains v. St. L., T. M. & S. Ry., 71 Mo. 
 164, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 610 ; Wells v. B. C. R. & N. R. R., 56 Iowa 520, 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243 ; Baylor v. D., L. & W. R. R., 40 N. J. L. 23 ; 
 Gibson v. M. Ry., 2 Ont. (Can.) 653 ; Clark v. B. & D. R. R., 78 Va. 709, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 78 ; sed contra, B. & O. & C. R. R. v. Rowan, Ind. , 
 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 390. 
 
 2 P. & R. R. R. v. Schertle, 97 Penna. St. 450, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 158 ; DeForrest v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 495 ; Wil- 
 liams v. C. R. R., 43 .Iowa 396 ; Gates v. S. M. Ry., 28 Minn. 110, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 237 ; Penna. Co. v. Hankey, 93 111. 580. 
 
 3 McGinnis v. C. S. B. Co., 49 Mich. 466, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 135 ; L. 
 S. & M. S. Ry. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440 ; cf. Meyers v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 57 
 Iowa 555, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 527. 
 
 1 Flanagan v. C. & N. W. Ry., 45 Wise. 98, 50 Id. 462, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 150. 
 
 6 M. C. R. R. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 101 ; I., 
 B. & W. R. R. v. Flanigan, 77 111. 365; Whitman v. W. & M. Ry., 58 Wiso 
 408, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 214; Kelly v. W. C. Ry., Wise. , 21 Am 
 * Eng. R. R. Cas. 633.
 
 DUTY OF INSPECTION. 303 
 
 unequal height; 1 nor because the car couplings work 
 slowl j .' 
 
 , The duty of the railway to its servants requires frequent and thorough 
 inspections of its line and appliances. 
 
 286. In order that the railway may be assured that 
 its line, rolling stock, and appliances are in a reasonably 
 safe condition, the duty devolves upon it of causing as 
 frequent and thorough inspections of its line and appli- 
 ances to be made as can be done consistently with the 
 conduct of its business, and the railway which neglects 
 to perform that duty of inspection is liable to a servant 
 injured by reason of any defect in the line, rolling 
 stock, or appliances which such an inspection ought to 
 have detected. 3 Under circumstances of more than 
 ordinary peril, as in the case of violent storms, it is the 
 duty of the railway to inspect its line with more than 
 ordinary promptitude and thoroughness, and in partic- 
 ular to examine such portions of it as are peculiarly 
 liable to injury by storms, such as embankments. 4 It 
 is also the duty of the railway, in recognition of the 
 necessary deterioration in its line, rolling stock, machinery 
 and appliances, by wear and tear in use, and by decay, 
 
 1 Hulett v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 67 Mo. 239 ; F. W., J. & S. Ry. v. Gilder- 
 sleeve, 33 Mich. 133 ; I., B. & W. R. R. v. Flanigan, 77 111. 365 ; Hodgkins v. 
 E. R. R., 119 Mass. 419 ;. Bottsford v. M. C. Ry., 33 Mich. 256 ; St. L., I. M. 
 & S. R. R. v. Higgins, 44 Ark. 293, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 629 ; cf. Ellis v. 
 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 95 N. Y. 546 ; Cowles v. R. & D. R. R., 84 N. C. 309. 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 90. 
 
 1 Williams v. C. R. R., 43 Iowa 396. 
 
 8 Brami v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 53 Iowa 595 ; Smoot v. M. & M. Ry., 67 Ala. 
 13; A. T. & S. F. R. R. v. Holt. 29 Kans. 149, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206; 
 Locke v. S. C. & P. R , 46 Iowa 109; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Conroy, 68 111. 560; 
 Davis v. C. V. R. R, 55 Vt. 84, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173 ; Dale v. St. L., 
 K. C. & N. R. R., 63 Mo. 455 ; H. & T. C. Ry. V. Dunham, 49 Tex. 181 ; 
 Indiana Car Co. v. Parker, 100 Ind. 191. 
 
 * Hardy v. N. C C. R. R., 74 N. C. 734 ; Gates v. S. M. Ry., 28 Minn. 110, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 237.
 
 8U4 DUTY OF INSPECTION. 
 
 to exercise care in inspection for the purpose of discover- 
 ing not only accidental defects but also the effects of 
 deterioration and the progress of decay ; x thus, where 
 a railway had recently come into possession of a line 
 constructed by another company, it was held not to be 
 liable for injuries resulting from the defective condition 
 of that line, it not being shown that the railway had 
 been negligent either in not inspecting, or in not repair- 
 ing it, 2 but where a railway had come into possession, as 
 lessee, of another line, and had operated it without in- 
 spection, it was held liable to a servant who had been 
 injured by the fall of a bridge, whose defects could have 
 been discovered if the bridge had been examined by a 
 competent engineer. 3 
 
 287. If the railway has not been negligent in the 
 original construction, nor in the subsequent inspection 
 of its line, rolling stock, machinery, and appliances, and 
 a servant is, nevertheless, injured by reason of a defect 
 therein, it must be shown, in order to hold the railway 
 liable for the injury, that the officer, whose duty it was 
 to repair it, had been notified of the particular defect 
 which was the cause of the injury. 4 A master is liable 
 if the machinery or appliances are defective, in that 
 they do not comply with statutory requisites, and if 
 injury to a servant is caused thereby. 5 A master is 
 liable for his personal negligence in the construction of 
 machinery, and the negligence of the president of a 
 corporation, under such circumstances, is the neglect 
 
 1 Baker v. A. V. E. K., 95 Penna. St. 211, 8 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 141 ; 
 Warden v. O. C. E. E., 137 Mass. 204, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 612. 
 
 1 Patterson v. C. & G. T. Ey., 49 Mich. 184, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 123. 
 
 1 Vosburg v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 94 N. Y. 374. 
 Patterson v. P. & C. E. E., 76 Penna. St. 389 ; Porter v. H. & St. J. E E., 71 
 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 44 ; C. & A. E. E. v. Piatt, 89 111. 141 ; T. W. 
 & W. Ey. v. Ingraham, 77 Id. 309 ; C. & N. W. Ey. v. Jackson, 55 Id. 492. 
 
 6 Britton v. G. W. Cotton Co- L. E. 7 Ex. 130.
 
 DUTY AS TO LINE, ETC. 305 
 
 of the corporation. 1 Eailways are liable if a person of 
 known incompetency has been employed to construct 
 rolling stock, machinery, or appliances, 2 and, although 
 a competent contractor has been employed for that 
 purpose, the railway is liable for his negligence in 
 construction. 
 
 288. The railway must, therefore, exercise care in its 
 construction, inspection, and 'maintenance in repair of 
 its line, roadbed, and track, 3 its embankments, 4 its 
 bridges and trestles, 5 its culverts, 6 its turn-tables, 7 its 
 
 1 Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Penna. St. 146 ; S. E. E. v. Jones, 30 Kans. 
 601, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 201. 
 
 2 Potts v. P., C. & D. Ey., 8 W. E. 524. 
 
 3 Porter v. H. & St. J. E. E., 71 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 44 ; Haw- 
 ley v. N. C. Ey., 82 N. Y. 370, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 24S ; Snow v. H. E. 
 E., 8 Allen 441 ; O'Donnell v. A. V. E. E., 59 Penna. St. 239 ; I. & C. E. E. i>. 
 Love, 10 Ind. 554 ; Fifield v. N. E. E., 42 N. H. 225 ; H. & G. N. E. E. v. 
 Eandall, 50 Tex. 254 ; Durkin v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 225, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 520 ; Trask v. C. S. E. E., 63 Cal. 96, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 192 ; Knapp 
 
 •. S. C. & P. Ey., 65 Iowa 91, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 60; De Forrest v. 
 Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 495 ; Brickman v. S. C. E. E., 
 8 S. C. 173 ; Lewis v. St. L. & I. M. Ey., 59 Mo. 495 ; Drymala v. Thompson, 
 26 Minn. 40 ; Baird v. C, E. I. & P. Ey., 55 Iowa 121, 13 N. W. Eep. 731, 8 
 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 128 ; 61 Iowa 359, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 75 ; H. 
 & T. C, Ey. v. Pinto, 60 Tex. 516, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 286 ; Batterson v, 
 C. & G-. T. Ey., 49 Mich. 184, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 123; Pool v. O, M. & 
 St. P. Ey., 56 Wise. 227, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 360 ; P. & E. E. E. v. 
 Schertle, 97 Penna. St. 450, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 158. 
 
 * C. E. E. v. Mitchell, 63 Ga. 177, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas, 145 ; Gates v. S. 
 M. Ey., 28 Minn. 110, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 237. 
 
 5 McDermott v. P. E. E., 30 Mo. 115; Warner v. E. Ey., 39 N. Y. 468 ; 
 Faulkner v. E. Ey., 49 Barb. 324 ; O. B. Coal Co. v. Eeed, 5 Weekly Notes of 
 Cases (Penna.) 3 ; Paulmier v. E. E. E., 5 Vroom 151 ; Locke v. S. C. & P. Ey . 
 46 Iowa 109 ; T., P. & W. Ey. v. Conroy, 61 111. 162 ; T. W. & W. Ey. v. Con 
 roy, 68 111. 560; Mann v. S. C. & P. Ey., 46 Iowa 637 ; McCune v. N. P. Ey. 
 18 Fed. Eep. 875, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 172 ; Koontz v. C, E. I. & P 
 Ey., 65 Iowa 224, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 85 ; Elmer v. Locke, 135 Mass 
 575, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 300 ; cf. W. Ey. v. Elliott, 98 111. 481, 4 Am 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 651. 
 
 • Davis v. C. V. E. E., 53 Vt. 84, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 173. 
 
 7 L. S. & M. S. Ev. v. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. 479 ; Durgin v. Munson, 9 
 Allen 396 ; E. T. V. «& G. E. E. v. Toppins, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 58, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 R R. Cas. 222. 
 20
 
 30G DUTY AS TO ROLLING STOCK. 
 
 sidings, 1 its switches, 2 its round-houses, 3 its engines, in- 
 cluding boilers, 4 cow-catcher/' pilot and whistle, 6 air- 
 brake, 7 valves, 8 oil-cup, 9 draw-bar, 10 and chafing-irons; 11 
 its derricks, poles, and tackle; 12 its bridge-guards; 13 its 
 
 1 Patterson v. P. & C. R. R., 76 Penna. St. 393. 
 
 1 Smith v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 69 Mo. 32 ; Ladd v. N. B. R. R., 119 Mass. 
 
 412 ; Walker v. B. & M. R. R., 128 Id. 8 ; Piper v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R, 56 
 
 N. Y. 630; Penna. Co. v. Roney, 89 Ind. 453, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 223 ; 
 
 Mattery v. T. & W. R. R., 23 Ind- 81 ; Randall v. B. & O. R. R., 109 U. S. 478, 
 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 440, 
 
 f> Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 474 (qualifying the rule laid down in St. L. & S. E. 
 
 Ry. v. Valirius, 56 Ind. 511) ; McGinnis v. C. S. B. Co., 49 Mich. 466, 8 Am. 
 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 135 ; Mayes v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 63 Iowa 562, 8 Am. & 
 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 527. 
 
 s Manning v. B. C. R. & N. R. R-, 64 Iowa 240, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 171 . 
 
 * Ford v. F. R. R., 110 Mass. 241 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46 ; Hough v. 
 
 [\ & P. Ry., 100 U. S. 213 ; P. & N. Y., N. & R. R. Co. v. Leslie, 16 Weekly 
 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 321 ; N. & D. R. R. v. Jones, 9 Heisk (Tenn.) 27 ; C. 
 
 & P. R, R. v. The State, 44 Md. 283 ; Kirkpatrick v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 
 
 79 N Y. 240; I., B. & W. Ry. v. Toy, 91 111. 474; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Moore, 
 
 77 Id 217 ; I. C. R. R. v. Houck, 72 Id. 285 ; M. & O. R. R. v. Thomas, 42 
 
 Ala. 672 ; Keegan v. W. R. R., 8 N. Y. 175 ; C. & I. C. C. R. R. v. Arnold, 
 
 31 Ind. 174 ; Hubgh v. N. C. & C. R. T., 6 La. An. 495 ; S. C. & P. Ry. v. Fin- 
 
 layson, 16 Neb. 272, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 68 ; Murphy v. B. & A. R. R., 
 
 88 N. Y. 146, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 510 ; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. Harper, 
 
 44 Ark. 524. 
 
 5 1. R. R. v. Estes, 96 111. 470. 
 
 6 Hough v. T. & P. Ry-, 100 U. S. 213. 
 
 I K. C, St. J. & C. B. Ry. v. Flynn, 78 Mo. 195, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 23. 
 
 8 Cone v. D., L. & W. R. R., 81 N. Y. 207 ; C. & R. I. R. R. v. Rung, 104 
 111. 641, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 218. 
 
 9 E. T. V. & G. Ry. v. Stewart, 13 Lea (Tenn.) 432, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 614. 
 
 10 Whitman v. W.& M. R. Ry., 58 Wise. 408, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 214. 
 
 II Greene v. M. & St. L. Ry., 31 Minn. 248, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 214. 
 " Holden v. F. R. R., 129 Mass. 268, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 94 ; Baker v. 
 
 A. V. R. R , 95 Penna. St. 211, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 141 ; King v. N. Y. 
 C. & H. R. R. R , 72 N. Y. 607 ; Derrenbacher v. L. V. R. R-, 87 Id. 636, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 624 ; G., H. & S. A. R. R. v. Delahunty, 53 Tex. 206, 
 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 628 ; K. P. Ry. v. Little, 19 Kans. 267 ; McGowan 
 v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 61 Mo. 528; P. P. Car Co. v. Bluhm, 109 111. 20, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 87 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 94; Houser v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 60 Iowa 230, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 501. 
 » Warden v. O. C. R. R., 137 Mass. 204, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 612.
 
 DUTY AS TO APPLIANCES. 307 
 
 hand cars; 1 its passenger and freight cars, 2 including 
 freight car ladders, 3 couplings, 4 brakes and brake chains, 5 
 and check chains, 6 and its tools. 7 
 
 289. The railway's duty of care as to the construction 
 of its line renders it liable to its servants for injuries 
 caused by the location in dangerous proximity to its 
 line of any structure over which it may rightfully ex- 
 
 1 N. Y., L. E. & W. K. E. v. Powers, 98 N. Y. 274, 21 Am. & Eng. K. K. 
 Cas. 609 ; C. R. R. v. Kenney, .58 Ga. 485 ; Kenney v. C. R. R., 61 Id. 590 ; C. 
 R. R. v. Kenney, 64 Id. 100, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 155 ; E. T. V. & Gr. R. 
 R. v. Smith, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 685; I. & G. N. R. R. v. Doyle, 49 Tex. 190; Bar- 
 ringer v. D. & H. C. Co., 19 Hun. 216 ; Miller v. U. P. Ry., 17 Fed. Rep. 67 ; 
 S. R. R. v. Jones, 30 Kans. 601, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 201 ; T. & P. Ry. 
 v. Kane, Tex. , 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 218 ; McQueen v. C. B. U. P. 
 Ry., 30 Kans. 689, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 226 ; Pool v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 
 56 Wise. 227, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 360 ; U. T. Co. v. Thomason, 25 Kans. 
 1, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 2 C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Warner, 108 111. 538, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 100 ; 
 M. R. & L. E. R. R. v. Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541 ; Flannigan v. C. & N. W. Ry., 
 45 Wise. 98, 50 Id. 462, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 150. 
 
 3 C. & A. R. R. v. Piatt, 89 111. 141 ; T., W. & W. Ry. v. Ingraham, 77 Id 
 309 ; Ballou ». C. & IS 1 . W. Ry., 54 Wise. 257, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480; 
 R. & D. R. R. v. Moore, 78 Va. 93, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 239. 
 
 * Lawless v. C. R. R. R., 136 Mass. 1, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 96 ; T. & 
 W. R. R. v. Frederick, 71 111. 294 ; Ellis v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 95 N. Y. 
 546 ; A.,' T. & S. F. R. R. v. Ledbetter, 34 Kans. 326, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 555 ; H. & T. C. R. R. v. Maddox, Tex. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 625 ; A., T. & S. F. R. R. v. Wagner, 33 Kans. 660, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 637. 
 
 5 Wedgwood v. C. & N. W. R. R., 44 Wise. 44, 41 Id. 478 ; Painton ». N. C. 
 Ry., 83 N. Y. 7, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 454 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Agnew, 11 
 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 394; Herbert v. N. P. Ry., Dak. , 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 85 ; Jobnson v. R. & D. R. R. 81 N. C. 453 ; De Graff 
 v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 76 N. Y. 125 ; Leahy v. S. P. Ry., Cal. ,15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 230 ; Disher v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 94 N. Y. 622 ; 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 233 ; Henry v. S. I. Ry., 81 N. Y. 373, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 60 ; Ransier v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 Minn. 331, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 601. 
 
 6 Ladd v. N. V. R. R., 119 Mass. 412. 
 
 T P., W. & B. R. R. v. Keenan, 103 Penna. St. 124; Guthrie v. L. & N. R 
 R., 11 Lea (Tenn.) 372, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 209 ; Baker v. W. & A. R. 
 R., 68 Ga. 699 ; C, C. & I. C. Ry v. Troesch, 68 111. 545 ; Hanrathy v. N. C. 
 Ry., 46 Md. 280.
 
 308 DANGEROUSLY LOCATED OBSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 ercise exclusive control, sucli as cattle chutes, 1 coal 
 chutes, 2 bridge supports, 3 bridge trusses, 4 signal posts 
 and telegraph poles, 5 water tanks, 6 a station-master's 
 clothes-line post, 7 mail catchers, 8 piles of lumber, 9 and 
 station awnings. 10 But the duty of the railway to its 
 servants does not require it to construct and maintain 
 the bridges, by which highways or other railways are 
 carried over its line, at such a height that its servants 
 can stand erect or move on the tops of its cars without 
 possibility of the collision of their persons with such 
 bridges. The reason of the distinction is that such 
 bridges are not under the exclusive control of the rail- 
 way whose line passes under them, and the servants of 
 that railway, in entering upon the performance of duties 
 which require them to stand or move upon the tops of 
 its cars while in transit on the line, know that one of 
 the dangers incident to their employment is that of 
 coming in contact with such bridges, and they, there- 
 fore, by entering into the service, impliedly undertake 
 to bear that risk, but they do not impliedly undertake 
 to bear the risk of injury from dangerous constructions 
 
 1 Allen 'v. B., C, E. & N. Ey., 57 Iowa 623, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 620, 
 Dorsey v. P. & C. C. Co., 42 Wise. 583. 
 
 2 A., T. & S. F. E. E. v. Eetford, 18 Kans. 245. 
 
 J Graham v. N. E. Ey., 18 C. B. N. S. 229, 114 E. C. L. 
 
 4 W. Ey. v. Elliott, 98 111. 481, 4 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 651. 
 
 5 C. & I. E. E. v. Eussell, 91 111. 298; Hall v U. P. Ey., 16 Fed. Eep. 744; 
 A. & C. A. L. E. E. v. Woodruff, 63 Ga. 707 ; H. & T. Ey. v. Oram, 49 Tex. 
 341 ; Walsh v. O. Ey. & N. Co., 10 Oregon 250 ; sed cf. Lovejoy v. B. & L. E. 
 E., 125 Mass. 79. 
 
 6 A. & W. P. E. E. v. Webb, 61 Ga. 586 ; A. & C. A. E. E. v. Woodruff, 65 
 Id. 707 ; H. & T. Ey. v. Oram, 49 Tex. 341 ; Walsh v. O. Ey. & N. Co., 10 
 Oregon 250 ; cf. Gould v. C. B. & Q. E. E., 66 Iowa 590, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 289. 
 
 7 Kearns v. O, M. & St. P. Ey., 66 Iowa 599, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 287. 
 
 8 C, B. & Q. E. E. v. Gregory, 58 111. 272. 
 
 9 Bessex v. C. & N. W. Ey., 45 Wise. 477. 
 10 1. C. E. E. v.Welch, 52 111. 183.
 
 CARS FROM OTHER LINES. ?>U ( J 
 
 which are under the exclusive control of the railway 
 which employs them. 
 
 The railway may assume that cars received from another line for trans- 
 portation over its line are properly constructed, and it is only bound 
 to make such an inspection of them as the exigencies of traffic 
 permit. 
 
 290. The through transportation of passengers and 
 goods over connecting lines without changing cars or 
 breaking bulk frequently requires railways to receive 
 and haul cars from other lines. The railway as a com- 
 mon carrier is bound to receive and haul such cars, but 
 its duty to its servants requires it to subject all such 
 cars to as thorough an inspection as the exigencies of 
 traffic permit, and if that inspection be not made, or if 
 upon such an inspection any such car be found to be 
 faulty in construction or dangerously out of repair, the 
 railway ought to decline to haul it, and if it does under- 
 take to haul it, the railway ought to be liable for any 
 injury to a servant caused thereby. The railway ought 
 not, however, to be held liable for hidden defects which 
 could not be detected by such an inspection as the exi- 
 gencies of traffic permit, nor ought it to be held liable 
 for its inspector's negligent performance of his duty, 
 save under those conditions which render a railway 
 liable for the negligence of any servant causing injury 
 to a fellow-servant. 1 
 
 1 Richardson ». G. E. Ry., L. R. 10 C P. 486, 1 C. P. D. 342; Fay v. M. & 
 St. L. Ry., 30 Minn. 231, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. ('as. 193; St. L. & S. E. Ry. 
 v. Valirius, 56 Ind. 511 ; Ballou v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 54 Wise. 257, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Gas. 4S0; M. C. R. R v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Gas. 101 ; Oottleib v. N.Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 29 Bun (N. Y.) 637, 100 
 N. Y. 462; Baldwin v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 50 Iowa 680; Smith v. Potter, 46 
 Mich. 258, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Gas. 140 ; Mackin v. B. & A. R. R., 135 Mass. 
 201, 15 Am.& Eng. R. R. ('as. 196; L. M. R. R. v. Fitzpatrick, 42 Ohio St. 
 818; T. & P. Ry. v. Charlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 Am. A Eng. R. R. Cas. 350; 
 Kelly v. W. G. Ry., Wise. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Gas. 633; O'Neil v.
 
 310 CARS FROM OTHER LINES. 
 
 291. There is not a thorough agreement am mg the 
 authorities on this subject. Thus, in L. M. R. R. v. 
 Fitzpatrick, 1 where the railway was held not to be liable 
 to a servant for injuries resulting from the negligence of 
 its inspector of car repairs, in failing to detect in a car 
 received from another line, a hole which had been 
 burned in the runway on the top of a freight car, and 
 also in failing to discover that its brake wheel was in- 
 sufficiently fastened, the consequence of which negli- 
 gence was, that the servant, in walking on the runway 
 in the discharge of his duty, while the car was in mo- 
 tion, saw the burned hole, and, in attempting to avoid 
 it, slipped, and, catching hold of the brake wheel to 
 save himself, it gave way, and he fell between the cars 
 and was hurt, Mcllvaine, J., said: "undoubtedly the 
 law requires a railroad company to exercise reasonable 
 care in providing and maintaining safe machinery for 
 the use of its employes engaged in running trains upon 
 its road, but such employer as to such employe is not an 
 insurer of the fitness of its machinery for the purpose 
 for which it was intended. It is bound to vigilance, 
 but vigilance is the maximum of its duty. The success- 
 ful management of a railroad requires the co-operation 
 of many servants. Reasonable care in the employment 
 of careful and competent servants is required of the 
 company, but the exercise of reasonable care by such 
 servants is at the risk of Iris fellow-servants. The car 
 alleged to be defective, in this case, as the testimony 
 tends to show, was the car of another company on its 
 way home ; but admitting the duty of the company was 
 the same as if it had been its own car, this duty was to 
 
 St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 9 Fed. Rep. 337 ; Jetter v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 2 Abb. 
 Ct. App. Dec. 458; Jones v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 28 Hun. 364, 92 N. Y. 
 628; Kieth v. N. II. & N. R. R., 140 Mass. 175, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 421. 
 
 1 42 Ohio St. 318, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 578.
 
 CARS FROM OTHEE LINES. 311 
 
 employ competent and careful inspectors and repairers. 
 If that were done, its duty to other operatives of the 
 road was performed." So, in Mackin v. B. & A. R. R., 1 
 upon similiar facts a like result was reached on the 
 ground, as stated by Allen, C. J., that the railway, 
 being bound as a common carrier, to receive from other 
 lines cars for transportation over its lines, its duty to its 
 servants with regard to cars so received, was not that 
 "of furnishing proper instrumentalities for service, 
 but of inspection, and this duty is performed by the 
 employment of sufficient, competent, and suitable in- 
 spectors, who are to act under ]3roper superintendence, 
 rules, and instructions ; and, however it may be as to 
 other cars, the inspectors must be deemed to be engaged 
 in a common employment with the brakemen as to such 
 cars while in transit, and until ready to be inspected for 
 a new service." Most of the cases cited in the last 
 note agree in their conclusion with the Fitzpatrick and 
 the Mackin cases. In Gottleib v. N. Y., L. E. & W. 
 R. R., 2 the railway was held liable to a freight brake- 
 man, who was injured while coupling defective cars 
 which had been received from another railway for trans- 
 portation over the line, and Earl, J., said, " the defend- 
 ant was under obligation to its employes to exercise 
 reasonable care and diligence in furnishing them safe 
 and suitable implements, cars and machinery for the 
 discharge of their duties, and upon the assumption that 
 the defendant was responsible for the condition of these 
 cars, as if they were owned by it, there can be but little 
 doubt that the evidence was ample to show that it had 
 failed in its duty to the plaintiff. The defect was an 
 obvious one, easily discoverable by the most ordinary 
 inspection, and it would seem to be the grossest negli- 
 
 1 135 Mass. 201, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Can. 196. 
 
 1 100 N. Y. 462.
 
 312 CARS FROM OTHER LINES. 
 
 gence to put such cars into any train, and especially 
 into a train consisting of cars of different gauge. * * * 
 All the authorities hold that the company drawing the 
 cars of another company over its road owes, in reference 
 to such cars, some duty to its employes. It is not 
 bound to take such cars if they are known to be defec- 
 tive and unsafe. Even if it is not bound to make tests 
 to discover secret defects, and is not responsible for such 
 defects, it is bound to inspect foreign cars, just as it 
 would inspect its own cars. It owes the duty of inspec- 
 tion as master, and is, at least, responsible for the con- 
 sequences of such defects as would be disclosed or dis- 
 covered by ordinary inspection. When cars come to it, 
 which have defects visible or discoverable by ordinary 
 inspection, it must either remedy such defects, or refuse 
 to take such cars ; so much, at least, is due from it to 
 its employes. The employes can no more be said to as- 
 sume the risks of such defects in foreign cars than in 
 cars belonging to the company. As to such defects, the 
 duty of the company is the same as to all cars drawn 
 over its road. The rule imposing this responsibility 
 is not an onerous, or inconvenient, or impracticable one. 
 It requires, before a train starts, and while it is upon its 
 passage, the same inspection and care as to all the cars 
 in the train." The judgment in Gottleib's case was un- 
 questionably right, upon the facts as found by the jury, 
 and the law as laid down by Earl, J., in his judgment, 
 is not in practical effect at variance with that enuncia- 
 ted in the Fitzpatrick and Mackin cases ; for in those 
 cases there was negligence in the performance of the 
 inspector's duty; while in the Gottleib case, there was 
 a total failure on the part of the railway to perform the 
 duty of inspection. 
 
 292. As the railway owes to its servants the duty of 
 exercising due care with regard to all the instrumentali-
 
 DUTY AS TO SELECTION OF SERVANTS. 313 
 
 ties of work which it supplies for their use, the fact that 
 another railway has contracted with it to keep in repair 
 the rolling stock which is delivered by that other com- 
 pany for transportation over its line, will not relieve it 
 from its obligation to its own servants to exercise due 
 care as to the safe condition of such rolling stock, and, 
 to that end, of inspecting it. 1 
 
 III. THE DUTY OF THE RAILWAY AS TO THE SELECTION 
 AND RETENTION OF SERVANTS. 
 
 The duty of the railway to its servants requires the exercise of care 
 in its selection and retention of servants. 
 
 293. It is the duty of the railway to its servants to 
 exercise due care in its selection, and retention in ser- 
 vice, of their fellow-servants, 2 and the full performance 
 of this obligation requires, as Harlan, J., said, in W. 
 Ry. v. McDaniel, 3 the exercise on its part of not simply 
 "the degree of diligence which is customary among 
 those entrusted with the management of railway prop- 
 erty, but such, as having respect to the exigencies of 
 the particular service, ought reasonably to be observed," 
 * * * and such as " is fairly commensurate with the 
 perils or dangers likely to be encountered." 4 In order, 
 therefore, to render the railway liable by reason of its 
 selection or retention of an incompetent servant, it must 
 be shown that the negligence of that servant was the 
 proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, and that 
 the officer of the railway, who is charged with the duty 
 of appointing and dismissing servants of that class, 
 
 1 C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Avery, 109 111. 314, 17 Am. & Eng, R. R. Cas. 
 649. 
 
 2 Moss v. P. R. R., 49 Mo. 167; Frazier v. P. R. R., 38 Penna. St. 104; 
 O'Donnell v. A. V. R. R., 59 Penna. St. 239 ; Rohback v. P. R. R., 43 Mo. 187 ; 
 U. P. R. R. v. Milliken, 8 Kans. 647. 
 
 8 107 U. S. 454. * Soc also A. & F. R. R. v. Waller, 48 Ala. 459,
 
 314 INCOMPETENCY OF SERVANTS. 
 
 either knew, or ought to have known, of the incompe- 
 tency of the servant. 1 Notice of a fellow-servant's in- 
 competency to the officer performing, upon behalf of 
 the railway, the duty of employing and discharging 
 servants, or selecting them for particular service, is, of 
 course, notice to the railway ; 2 but notice to a fellow-ser- 
 vant is not notice to the railway, as, for instance, notice 
 of a conductor's incapacity to a servant, whose duty it 
 is to call the conductors for service in a designated 
 order, is not notice to the railway of the incompetency 
 of a conductor. 3 
 
 294. The railway will be liable if it retains in its 
 service a servant whose habits are known to be intem- 
 perate; 4 or an engine-driver who has habitually dis- 
 obeyed a rule of the railway forbidding the relinquish- 
 
 1 Paterson v. Wallace, 1 Macq. H. L. 748 ; Brydon v. Stewart, 2 Id. 30 ; Weems 
 v. Mathieson, 4 Id. 215 ; Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 797. 86 E. C. L.; H. & B. 
 T. R. R. v. Decker, 82 Penna. St. 119 ; 84 Id. 419 ; Frazier v. P. R. R , 38 Id. 
 104; M. C. R. R. v. Gilbert, 46 Mich. 176, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 230; 
 Murphy v. St. L. & I. M. Ry., 71 Mo. 202 ; Moss v. P. R. R., 49 Id. 169 ; El- 
 liott v. St. L. & I. M. R. R., 67 Id. 272 ; H. & T. C. Ry. v. Myers, 55 Tex. 110 ; 
 Gilman v. E. Ry., 10 Allen 233, 13 Id. 433 ; E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Gurley, 12 
 Lea (Tenn.) 46, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 568 ; N. O., J. & N. Ry. v. Hughes, 
 49 Miss. 258 ; Howd v. M. C. R. R., 50 Id. 178 ; C, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Huflmann, 
 78 Mo. 50, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 625 ; Smith v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 140 ; M. & O. R. R. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289 ; Blake v. 
 M. C. R. R, 70 Me. 60 ; C, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Doyle, 18 Kans. 58; Baulec v. N. 
 Y. & II. R. R., 59 N. Y. 356 ; P., M. & M. R. R. v. Smith, 59 Ala. 245 ; 
 Kersey v. K. C, St. J. & C. B. R. R., 79 Mo. 362, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 638. 
 
 2 H. & B. T. R. R. v. Decker. 82 Penna. St. 119, 84 Id. 419 ; Frazier v. P. R. 
 R., 38 Id. 104; Patterson v. P. & C. R. R., 76 Id. 394; O. & M. Ry. v. Col- 
 larn, 73 Ind. 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 554 ; T. M. R. R. v. W T hitmore, 58 
 Tex. 276, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 195 ; Tyson v. S. & N. A. R. R., 61 Ala. 
 554; McDermott v. H. & St. J. R. R., 73 Mo. 516, 2 Am. & Eng! R. R. Cas. 
 85 ; Laning v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Mann v. D. & H. C. Co., 91 N. 
 Y. 495, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 199. 
 
 3 M. C. R. R. v. Dolan, 32 Mich. 510. 
 
 * H. & B T. R. R. v. Decker, 82 Penna. St. 119, 84 Id. 419; C & A. R. R. 
 v. Sullivan, 63 111. 293 ; M. C. R. R. v. Gilbert, 46 Mich. 176, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 230 ; Cleghorn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R , 56 N. Y. 44 ; Chapman 
 v. E. Ry., 55 N. Y. 579 ; Gilman v. E. R. R , 13 Allen 433, 10 Id. 233.
 
 INTOXICATED SERVANTS. 315 
 
 ment of the control of his engine to his fireman. 1 The 
 proof of frequent or continued acts of negligence by a ser- 
 vant, with knowledge thereof brought home to the railway , 
 will fix its liability ; 2 thus, in Hilts v. C. & G. T. Ry., 3 the 
 fact that an engine-driver had been drunk on duty three 
 times within a period of nine months, was held to be 
 evidence of negligence on the part of the railway in 
 that its executive officers failed to learn of his dissipated 
 habits, and the railway was held liable to a servant who 
 was killed by being run over by the engine-driver's 
 careless management of the engine at a time when he 
 was intoxicated. But proof of specific acts of negli- 
 gence by a servant will not establish his incompetency, 
 nor render the railway liable for his retention, unless it 
 be shown that the servant's negligent character either 
 was, or reasonably ought to have been, known to the 
 officer, who, on behalf of the railway, exercised the 
 power of appointing and dismissing such servants ; 4 nor 
 will the fact that an engine-driver is shown to be near- 
 sighted and compelled to use glasses, render the railway 
 negligent if it retains him in the service. 5 
 
 295. The duty of the railway to its servants is not 
 adequately performed, unless care be exercised not only 
 in its original selection of servants, but also in its sub- 
 sequent organization, discipline, and control of those 
 servants. The action of its servants must be intelli- 
 gently directed and vigilantly supervised, and, to that 
 end, judicious regulations must be made and enforced 
 
 1 O. & M Ry. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 554. 
 J Baulec v. N. Y. & H. R. R.. 59 N. Y. 35G ; Mann v. D. & H. C. Co., 91 Id. 
 495, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 199. 
 
 3 55 Mich. 437, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 628. 
 
 4 C, R. I. & P. Ry. v. IIufT'mann, 78 Mo. 50, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 625 ; 
 Corson v. M. C. R. R., 76 Me 244, 17 Am & Eng R. R. Cas. 634; Cooper v. 
 M. & P. R. R., 23 Wise. 668 ; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Ruby, 38 Ind. 294 ; 
 Harper v. I. & St. L. R. R , 44 Mo. 488. 
 
 6 T. & P. Ry. v. Harrington, 62 Tex. 597, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 571.
 
 316 DUTY IN OPERATING THE LINE. 
 
 for the government of its servants in the discharge of 
 their duties; those servants must be adequately paid; 
 they must be promoted, or otherwise rewarded, when 
 they merit special commendation for meritorious service ; 
 they must be promptly punished when they fall short 
 of a full and faithful performance of duty ; and they 
 must be unhesitatingly dismissed when their incompe- 
 tency has been proven. 
 
 IV. THE DUTY OF RAILWAYS TO THEIR SERVANTS IN 
 THE OPERATION OF THE LINE. 
 
 The duty of the railway to its servants requires the exercise of care in 
 its operation of its line. 
 
 296. It is the duty of railways to make regulations 
 for the safety of their servants, and to use all reasonable 
 means for the enforcement of those regulations, 1 but a 
 railway is not liable to an injured servant merely be- 
 cause his fellow-servants have disobeyed such regula- 
 tions. 2 A railway is, however, liable if it permits its 
 servants to habitually disregard regulations, whose en- 
 forcement is necessary to the safety of other servants, as 
 where a servant is injured by the careless handling of 
 an engine by a fireman, it being proven that the engine- 
 driver, in disobedience of the regulations of the railway, 
 was to the knowledge of his superior officers in the habit 
 of surrendering the control of his engine to the fireman. 3 
 A railway is not negligent to its servants if it varies 
 from its regular time-table in running its trains, pro- 
 
 1 Vose v. L. & Y. Ry., 2 H. & N. 728 ; Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 515 ; Rose v. B. & A. R. R., 58 N. Y. 217 ; Cooper v. C. R. 
 R., 44 Iowa 134; P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Powers, 74 111. 341 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. 
 v. La valley, 36 Ohio St. 221, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 549. 
 
 2 Rose v B. & A. R. R., 58 N. Y. 217. 
 
 3 O. & M. Ry. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 554 ; Connor 
 v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 59 Mo. 285.
 
 DUTY IN OPERATING LINE. 317 
 
 vided tLat it gives to its servants reasonable notice of 
 any change, which if unknown to them, may endanger 
 their safety j 1 but where on a single track line a special 
 train is ordered to run when a regular train is due, and, 
 no effort having been made to hold the regular train, a 
 collision ensues and a servant is injured, the railway is 
 liable, for the negligence of its superintendent is its 
 negligence. 2 So also, where a construction train is 
 allowed to stand on the line in a curved cutting at a 
 time when a regular train is due, no notice being given 
 to the engine-driver or conductor of the regular train 
 that they may expect to find the construction train in 
 their way, and through the failure of a labourer to 
 properly signal the regular train, a collision having en- 
 sued and a servant on the construction train having 
 been injured, the railway was held liable therefor. 3 So 
 in McLeod v. Ginther, 4 the railway was held liable 
 to a servant injured in a collision which resulted from 
 the negligence of a telegraph operator in so writing out 
 an order for the movement of a train on a single track 
 line as to convey to the mind of a train conductor the 
 idea that he might safely occupy the line for a longer 
 time than that time which the order was intended to 
 give him. 
 
 297. It is the duty of the railway not to increase the 
 perils of its servants by the inadequacy of the force 
 employed in any particular work, and, in particular, 
 trains must be manned by a sufficient number of train 
 hands; 5 but a railway is not negligent to its labourers 
 
 1 Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 515. 
 
 ■ Sheehan v. N. Y. C & II. R. R. R., 91 N. Y. 332, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 235. 
 
 3 P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Henderson, Ohio St. , 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 529. 
 
 * 80 Ky. 399, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 162, 15 Id. 291 
 
 * Flike v. B. & A. R. R., 53 N. Y. 549 ; Booth v. B. & A. R. R., 73 Id. 38 ; 
 0. & E. I. R. R. v. Geary, 110 111. 383, 1° Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 606;
 
 3 IS SPEED OF TRAINS. 
 
 if it fails, to put a conductor in charge of a dirt 
 train. 1 
 
 298. The fact that a train is run at a rate of speed in 
 excess of that prohibited by statute is not necessarily 
 negligence as to servants of the railway on the train, 2 
 and apart from statutory regulation no rate of speed is 
 per se negligent, 3 but the circumstances of the particular 
 case, such as the approach to a level crossing, or the 
 proximity to a city, town, or village, or the defective 
 condition of the line, may render that rate of speed neg- 
 ligent which, under other circumstances, as, for instance, 
 on a straight line in good order in the open country or 
 so fenced that neither trespassing human beings nor 
 animals can come upon it, would not be negligent. 4 
 The running of a train at a high rate of speed past a 
 way station is not per se unlawful, and is not negligence 
 as to servants engaged in work on the station platform, 5 
 yet, in Crowley v. B., C, R. & N. R. K., 6 where a 
 labourer while clearing away snow in a railway yard 
 was injured by being struck by a train moving at a rate 
 of speed in excess of that permitted by municipal ordi- 
 nance within the city limits, the railway was held 
 liable. 
 
 299. A railway is negligent to those servants whose 
 duty requires them to walk on its line, or in its yards, 
 if it moves engines or trains at night without a head- 
 
 B. & O. R. R. v. State, 41 Md. 268 ; C & N. W. Ry. v. Donahue, 75 111. 106 ; 
 Skip v. E. C. Ry., 9 Ex. 223 ; Harvey v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 N. Y. 
 481, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 51) ; cf. Besel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 70 N. 
 Y. 171, reversing the judgment of the lower court as reported in 9 Hun 457. 
 1 Henry v. S. I. Ry., 81 N. Y. 373. 
 
 * Dowell v. V. & M. R. R., 61 Miss. 519, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 42 ; 
 Lockwood v. C. & N. W. Ry., 51 Wise. 50, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 151. 
 
 8 Wallace v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 74 Mo. 594. 
 
 * C, R. I. & P. Ry. v. Huffmann, 78 Mo. 50, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 625. 
 4 Muster v. C, St. P. & M. Ry., 61 Wise. 325, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 113. 
 6 65 Iowa 658, 18 \m. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 56.
 
 NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW-SERVANTS. 319 
 
 light; 1 but the reversal of an engine in making up, or 
 switching, trains is not negligence on the part of the 
 railway ; 2 nor does the railway's duty to its train hands 
 engaged on moving trains require it to notify them be- 
 fore bringing the train to a sudden stop in order to 
 avoid a collision with trespassing cattle on the line. 3 
 The railway is liable to its servants for injuries caused 
 by collision with obstructions on the line which it has 
 been negligent in not discovering and removing. 4 
 Nevertheless, as is hereinafter stated, the servant takes 
 upon himself the risk of injury from the ordinary con- 
 duct of the business, including the negligence of his 
 fellow-servants, and the railway is only liable for such 
 injuries as result from the non-performance of its duty 
 to him. 
 
 V. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS TO THEIR SERVANTS 
 FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHER SERVANTS. 
 
 300. A master is liable to his servants for injuries 
 caused by his negligence while personally participating 
 with them in the work. 5 On the same principle, where 
 the master, by his personal interference in the conduct 
 of a work whose performance with safety to a servant 
 requires extraordinary care on the part of that servant, 
 urges the servant to a degree of speed which compels 
 him to neglect precautions which he would otherwise 
 take, such conduct on the part of the servant is not con- 
 tributory negligence. 6 Kailway corporations being 
 
 1 Burling v. I. C. R. R., 85 111. 18 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Taylor, 69 Id. 461. 
 
 • Jackson v. K. C, L. & S. K. R. R., 31 Kans. 761, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 178. 
 
 8 M. P. Ry. v. Haley, 25 Kans. 35, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 594. 
 
 • Wilson v. D., S. P. & P. Ry., 7 Colo. 101, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 192. 
 
 6 Ashworth v. Stanwix, 3 El. & El. 701, 107 E. C. L. ; Roberta v. Smith, 2 
 H. & N. 213; Mellors v. Shaw, 1 B. & S. 446, 101 E. C. L. 
 
 • Lee v. Woolsey, 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 337.
 
 320 VICE-PRINCIPALS. 
 
 artificial beings and creatures of law, cannot render 
 themselves liable by any personal participation in their 
 servants' work, but they are, of course, liable to those ser- 
 vants for the negligence of their fellow-servants wherever 
 individual masters would be liable for the negligence of 
 such servants, and the corporate character of railways 
 neither increases nor diminishes their liability in that 
 respect. 
 
 301. The master being liable if his own negligence 
 in his personal participation with his servant in the 
 work be the cause of injury to the servant, it would 
 seem that the master ought to be equally liable if the 
 cause of injury to the servant be the negligence of a 
 person whom the master has placed in such a position 
 that he can fairly be considered as the master's repre- 
 sentative, with power to conduct the business in the 
 exerise of an uncontrolled discretion. That the master 
 would be liable in such a case was tacitly admitted in 
 Murphy v. Smith, 1 and in Feltham v. England, 2 and 
 expressly ruled in Grizzle v. Frost ; 3 and the doctrine 
 of these cases is supported by many American cases. 4 
 On the other hand, in Wilson v. Merry, 5 where it was 
 held that the operators of a mine were not responsible 
 for the death of a° miner caused by an interruption of 
 the free ventilation of the mine and a consequent explo- 
 sion of fire-damp, resulting from the erection of a scaf- 
 folding by the manager of the mine, Lord Cairns said : 
 "what the master is, in my opinion, bound to his 
 servants to do, in the event of his not personally super- 
 
 1 19 C. B. N. S. 361, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 2 L. E. 2 Q. B. 33. s 3 F. & F. 622. 
 
 * It is sufficient to cite Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517 ; Mullan v. P. & 
 8. M. S. S. Co., 78 Penna. St. 25, as construed in L. V. Coal Co. v. Jones, 86 
 Id. 441, and in D. & H. Canal Co. v. Carroll, 89 Id. 374 ; Mann. v. D. & H. C. 
 Co., 91 N. Y. 500 ; Pantzar v. T. F. I. M. Co., 99 N. Y. 368. 
 
 5 L. B. 1 Sc. & Div. 326.
 
 VICE-PRINCIPALS. 321 
 
 Intending and directing the work, is to select proper 
 and competent persons to do so, and to furnish them 
 with adequate materials and resources for the work. 
 When he has done this he has, in my opinion, done all 
 that he is bound to do. And if the persons so selected 
 are guilty of negligence this is not the negligence of the 
 master." In Tarrant v. Webb, 1 Jervis, C J., put the same 
 view tersely, saying : " the master may be responsible 
 where he is personally guilty of negligence, but cer- 
 tainly not where he does his best to get competent 
 persons. He is not bound to warrant their competency." 
 In Howells v. L. S. Steel Co., 2 where a mine, in obedi- 
 ence to statutory provisions, having been put by its owner 
 under the " control " of a manager, and a miner having 
 been killed by the negligence of that manager in fail- 
 ing to withdraw the miners when the mine was invaded 
 by noxious gases, it was held that the master, the op- 
 erator of the mine, was not liable for the death so caused, 
 Cockburn, C. J., saying : " since the case of Wilson v. 
 Merry, it is not open to dispute that in general the 
 master is not liable to a servant for the negligence of a 
 fellow-servant, although he be the manager of the con- 
 cern." It is the clear result of these cases that in Eng- 
 land masters are not to be held liable to their servants 
 for the personal negligence of vice-principals. 3 
 
 302. The general rule in the United States is that 
 which is stated by Allen, J., in Malone v. Hathaway, 4 
 in these terras : " when the servant, by whose acts of 
 negligence, or want of skill, other servants of the com- 
 mon employer have received injury, is the alter ego of 
 the master to whom the employer has left everything, 
 reserving to himself no discretion, then the middle-man's 
 
 1 18 C. B. 804, 86 E. C. L. ■ L. R. 10 Q. B. 62. 
 
 » See also D. & H. Canal Co. v. Carroll, 89 Penna. St. 374. 
 * 64 N. Y. 5. 
 21
 
 322 VICE-PRINCIPALS. 
 
 negligence is the negligence of the employer, for which 
 the latter is liable. The servant in such case represents 
 the master, and is charged with the master's duty. 
 '■• '■■ * * When the middle-man, or superior servant, 
 employs and discharges the subalterns, and the princi- 
 pal withdraws from the management of the business, or 
 the business is of such a nature that it is necessarily 
 committed to agents, as in the case of corporations, the 
 principal is liable for the neglects and omissions of duty 
 of the one charged with the selection of other servants, 
 in employing and selecting such servants, and in the 
 general conduct of the business committed to his care." 
 In L. V. Coal Co. v. Jones, 1 Mercur, C. J., uses nearly 
 identical language, saying: "where the master has 
 placed the entire charge of the business in the hands of 
 an agent, exercising no authority and no superinten- 
 dence of his own therein, he may be liable for the negli- 
 gence of such an agent to a subordinate employe." 
 Under all the American cases a servant to whom so 
 extensive an authority had been delegated would be 
 held to be a vice-principal, but in many of the cases a 
 much more limited delegation of authority is held to 
 constitute the person entrusted therewith a vice-princi- 
 pal. The test in some of the cases is the grant to a 
 servant of the power of appointing and discharging 
 subordinate servants, and as to such subordinates the 
 servant invested with that power is held to be a vice- 
 principal. 2 A more logical test is to be found in the 
 grant to a servant of that discretionary and supervisory 
 power in the administration of a railway which is neces- 
 sarily exercised by the controlling authority of the rail- 
 
 1 86 Penna. St. 439. 
 
 2 Mnllan v. P. & S. M. S. S. Co., 78 Penna. St. 25 ;_ Smith v. S. C. & P. R. P., 
 15 Neb. 583, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 561 ; Flike v. B. & A. R. R., 53 N. Y. 
 549 ; McKune v. C. S. R. R., Cal. , 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589 ; C. 
 & A. Ry. v. May, 108 111. 288, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 320.
 
 TRAIN-DISPATCHERS. 323 
 
 way, or by some agent to whom it has been specially 
 delegated. 
 
 303. If this test be applied, it will be found that the 
 executive officers, who direct and control the operation 
 of the line, or of any integral portion of it, and who 
 appoint and select subordinate servants, are vice-princi- 
 pals, and that foremen of gangs, yard-masters, station- 
 agents, engine-drivers, and conductors of trains, are not 
 vice- principals, but merely fellow-servants of the ser- 
 vants who serve under them. Upon this principle, 
 a train-dispatcher has been held to be a vice-prin- 
 cipal. 1 
 
 304. A foreman is merely a superior servant, and he 
 cannot properly be regarded as an alter ego of his mas- 
 ter. Nevertheless, in some cases, it is held that fore- 
 men are vice-principals. 2 On the other hand, it is held 
 in other cases, that a foreman is not a vice-principal; 3 
 
 1 McKinne v. C. S. R. R., Cal. , 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 539 ; Darri- 
 gan v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., 52 Conn. 285, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 438 ; 
 Phillips v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 64 Wise. 475, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 453. 
 
 2 L. & N. R. R. v. Bowler, 9 Heisk. 866 ; L. M. R. R. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio 
 416 ; P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Lewis, 31 Ohio St. 196 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. 
 Lavalley, 36 Id. 221, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 549 ; Smith v. S. C. & P. Ry., 
 15 Neb. 583, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 561 ; Cowles v. R. & D. R. R., 84 N. 
 C. 309 ; Ragsdale v. M. & C. R. R., 3 Baxter (Tenn.) 426 ; L., C. & L. R. R. v. 
 Cavens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 559 ; Gilmore v. N. P. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 866, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 304 ; Dobbin v. R. & D. R. R„ 81 N. C. 446. 
 
 3 Lovegrove v. L. B. & S. C. Ry.; Gallagher v. Piper, 16 C. B, N. 8. 669, 111 
 , E. C. L. ; Feltham v. England, L. R. 2 Q. B. 33, 7 B. & S. 676 ; Wigmore 
 
 v. Jay, 5 Ex. 354 ; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R., 25 N. Y. 565 ; Keystone Bridge 
 Co. v. Newberry, 96 Penna. St. 246; Brick v. R., N. Y. & P. R. R, 98 N. Y. 
 212; L. V. Coal Co. v. Jones, 86 Penna. St. 441 ; Weger v. P. R. R., 55 Id. 
 460 ; Caldwell v. Brown, 53 Id. 453 ; D. & H. C. Co. v. Carroll, 89 Id. 374 ; 
 Coon v. S. & U. R. R., 5 N. Y. 492 ; Willis v. O. Ry. & N. Co., 11 Oregon 257, 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 539 ; Peschel v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 62 Wise. 338, 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545 ; Marshall v. Strieker, 63 Mo. 308 ; Gowan v. 
 St. L. & I. M. R. R., 61 Id. 528 ; Rains v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 71 Id. 164, 5 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 610; Shauek v. N. C. R. R., 25 Md. 462; Thayer n 
 St. L., A. & T. II. R. R., 22 Ind. 26 ; Fraker v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Mina 
 54, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 256 ; Copper v. L. E. & St. L. Ry., Ind. 
 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 277.
 
 324 FOREMEN". 
 
 thus, in Feltham v. England, 1 the defendant was a 
 maker of locomotive engines, and the plaintiff was a 
 workman in his service ; while an engine was being 
 hoisted on a travelling crane resting on brick piers, the 
 plaintiff, under the directions of the defendant's fore- 
 man or manager, having gotten on the engine, was 
 injured by its fall, resulting from the giving way of the 
 piers. After a verdict for the plaintiff a rule to enter 
 a nonsuit was made absolute, Mellor, J., saying, " the 
 master still retained the control of the establishment, 
 and there was nothing to show that the manager or 
 foreman was other than a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, 
 although he was a servant having greater authority." 
 
 305. In some of the cases it is held that the conduc- 
 tors of trains are vice-principals, as to the engine-drivers, 
 firemen or stokers, and train hands or guards, of their 
 trains; 2 thus, in C, C. & C. Ry. v. Keary, 3 where a 
 railway was held liable to a train hand for injuries 
 caused by the negligence of the conductor of his train, 
 Ranney, J., suggests the following reasons for the con- 
 clusion to which the court came, " that the principal is, 
 by anything incident to the contract of service, re- 
 leased from his obligation to everybody to superintend 
 and control the business with care and prudence, so as 
 to prevent injury, we think wholly unsupported by rea- 
 son, and, as yet, nearly so, by authority. For this pur- 
 pose (i. e., to superintend and control with skill and 
 care the dangerous force exerted), the conductor is em- 
 ployed, and, in this, he directly represents the company. 
 They contract for and engage his care and skill. They 
 
 1 L. R. 2 Q. B. 33. 
 
 * C, C. & C. Ry. v. Keary, 3 Ohio St. 254 ; L. M. R. R. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio 
 415; C, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377; Moon v. R. & A. R. R., 78 
 Va. 745, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 531 ; Cowles v. R. & D. R. R., 84 N. C. 309 
 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 90. 
 
 8 3 Ohio St. 254.
 
 CONDUCTOKS. 325 
 
 commission him to exercise that dominion over the 
 operations of the train, which essentially pertains to 
 the prerogatives of the owner, and in its exercise he 
 stands in the place of the owner, and is in the discharge 
 of a duty which the owner, as a man and a party to the 
 contract of service, owes to those placed under him, and 
 whose lives may depend on his fidelity. His will alone 
 controls everything, and it is the will of the owner that 
 his intelligence alone should be trusted for this purpose. 
 This service is not common to him and the hands placed 
 under him. They have nothing to do with it. His 
 duties and their duties are entirely separate and distinct, 
 although both are necessary to produce the result. It 
 is his to command, and theirs to obey and execute. 
 No service is common that does not admit a common 
 participation ; and no servants are fellow-servants when 
 one is placed in control over the other. * * * It is the 
 duty of the servants to obey the orders of the superior 
 thus placed over them, and to perform as he shall 
 direct. * * * But they cannot be made to bear losses 
 arising from carelessness in conducting the train, over 
 which their employer gave them no power or control, 
 either separately or collectively, until we are prepared 
 to say that justice and public policy require the conse- 
 quences of duty omitted by one party to be visited upon 
 the other, although stripped of all power to prevent 
 such consequences." So, in C, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Ross, 1 
 the plaintiff, an engine-driver in the defendant's employ- 
 ment, was injured in a collision on a single track line, 
 caused by the neglect of the conductor of his train to 
 communicate to him a telegraphic order received by the 
 conductor from the train-dispatcher, directing the train 
 to pass another train at a certain siding. Judgment 
 upon a verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed in an opin- 
 
 112 u. s. 377.
 
 826 CONDUCTORS. 
 
 ion delivered by Field, J., and concurred in by Waite, 
 C. J., and by Miller, Harlan, and Woods, JJ., but dis- 
 sented from by Bradley, Matthews, Gray, and Blatch- 
 ford, JJ. The ground of decision, as stated by Field, 
 J., is, that " the conductor of a railway train, who com- 
 mands its movements, directs when it shall start, at 
 what stations it shall stop, at what speed it shall run, 
 and has the general management of it and control over 
 the persons employed upon it, represents the company," 
 and, therefore, his negligence is the negligence of the 
 company. These cases are obviously open to criticism. 
 The judgments therein seem to be based on a misunder- 
 standing of the practical method of railway operations. 
 It is far from accurate to say, as Banney, J., said of a 
 railway conductor in C, C. & C. By. v. Keary, 1 " his 
 will alone controls everything," or to assume, as Field, 
 J., assumes, in C. M. & St. P. By. v. Boss, 2 that such 
 an official "commands its" (the train's) "movements, 
 directs when it shall start, at what stations it shall stop, 
 at what speed it shall run, and has the general manage- 
 ment of it, and control over the persons employed upon 
 it." In fact, the negligence on the part of the con- 
 ductor, which was the subject of complaint in that case, 
 was, not that he had improperly exercised a discretion 
 vested in him, but that he had failed to show to the 
 engine-driver, and on his own part to obey, an express 
 order from his superior officer, the train-dispatcher, 
 commanding the train to wait at a particular station 
 until the arrival of a certain other train. The facts 
 upon which the plaintiff's claim was founded, therefore, 
 negative the theory upon which the railway was held 
 liable. As Folger, C. J., said, in Slater v. Jewett, 3 
 courts may well take judicial notice of the fact that "the 
 
 1 3 Ohio St. 254. ■ 112 TL S. 395. 
 
 3 84 N. Y. Gl, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 515.
 
 ENGINE-DEIVEES. 327 
 
 great railways of the land are managed in the every-day 
 practical running of them, by over-looking officers at 
 distant places, who use the telegraph wires to keep all 
 the while informed where trains are, and to direct 
 their movements from hour to hour." In railway 
 practice a conductor cannot run his train as a master 
 sails his ship. No discretion is vested in him. The 
 time-table, as arranged by his superior officers, pre- 
 scribes the point and hour of departure of the train, the 
 time at which it is to pass each station on its way, its 
 place and hour of final stoppage, and fixes, by necessary 
 implication, its speed between the several stations. The 
 conductor is bound, in the running of his train, to 
 rigidly adhere to that time-table, unless otherwise di- 
 rected by a special order from competent authority. So 
 far, therefore, from being a vice-principal, or an execu- 
 tive officer to whom is delegated, in the words of Kan- 
 ney, J., "that dominion over the operations of the train 
 which essentially pertains to the prerogatives of the 
 owner," a conductor is merely the foreman of the hands 
 employed on the train, and, as such, he is their fellow- 
 servant. That conductors of trains are not vice-princi- 
 pals, but fellow-servants, as to the engine-drivers, fire- 
 men or stokers, and train hands or guards of their 
 trains, is held in two well-reasoned Wisconsin cases. 1 
 
 306. It is held in some cases that an engine-driver 
 is a vice-principal as to his fireman or stoker, and as to 
 train -hands and labourers. Thus, in L. & N. R. K. v. 
 Collins, 2 Robertson, C. J., said, that "in the use and 
 control of the engine, the engineer acts as the repre- 
 sentative agent of the common superior — the corpora- 
 
 1 Heine v. C. & N. W. Ry., 58 Wise. 528 ; Pease v. C. & N. W. Ry., 61 Id. 
 163, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 527. 
 
 2 2 Duvall 114.
 
 328 servants' neglect of railway's duty. 
 
 tion." This view is as unsound in theory as it is un- 
 supported by other respectable authority. 
 
 307. It is obvious that the servant, whose negligence 
 has caused the injury, may in the discharge of one class 
 of duties act as a vice-principal, and in the discharge 
 of another class of duties he may be only a fellow- 
 servant. The liability of the railway to the injured 
 servant will then be dependent upon the character of 
 the duty whose non-performance by the negligent ser- 
 vant was the cause of the injury. 1 
 
 308. It is clear that that negligence of a servant, 
 which is the cause of injury to another servant of a 
 common master, must consist either in his carelessness 
 while personally participating with that other servant 
 in the work of their common master, or in his failure 
 to perform a duty to the injured servant which the im- 
 plied contract of service has devolved upon their master, 
 and the performance of which duty the master has dele- 
 gated to him, such as the exercise of due care in either 
 the provision and maintenance in repair of the instru- 
 mentalities of labour, or in the selection and retention 
 in service of the injured servant's fellow-servants. If 
 the servant's negligence be of the former character, the 
 railway ought not to be held liable therefor, if due care 
 has been exercised in the selection and retention in 
 service of the negligent servant, and if that negligent 
 servant be not a vice-principal, for, as is shown in a 
 subsequent section, every servant impliedly undertakes 
 to bear the risk of the negligence of those fellow-ser- 
 vants, in whose selection or retention in service the 
 master has not been negligent. If, however, the negli- 
 gence be of the latter character, whatever be the rank 
 of the negligent servant, or the degree of authority 
 
 1 Brick v. K., N. Y. & P. Ry., 98 N. Y. 212; Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 Id. 516; 
 McCosker v. L. I. R. R., 84 Id. 77.
 
 NEGLECT OF RAILWAY'S DUTY. 329 
 
 vested in him, the master ought to be held liable, upon 
 the principle stated by Blackburn, J., in The Mersey 
 Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, 1 that "the liability for an 
 omission to do something depends entirely on the extent 
 to which a duty is imposed to cause that thing to be 
 done ; and it is quite immaterial whether the actual 
 actors are servants or not." In this connection, also, it 
 may well be remembered that Byles, J., said, with great 
 force, in his judgment in the Exchequer Chamber in 
 Clarke v. Holmes, 2 that " if a master's personal knowl- 
 edge of defects in his machinery be necessary to his 
 liability, the more a master neglects his business, and 
 abandons it to others, the less will he be liable." The 
 true rule, therefore, is that " no duty belonging to the 
 master to perform for the safety and protection of his 
 servants can be delegated to any servant of any grade 
 so as to exonerate the master from responsibility to 
 a servant who has been injured by its non-perform- 
 ance." 3 
 
 309. Upon this principle it has been held in many 
 cases, that, as it is the duty of the railway to its ser- 
 vants to take due care that its line, 4 rolling stock, ma- 
 chinery, and appliances 5 are in a safe condition for 
 
 1 L. R. 1 H. L. 115. '7H.&N, 949. 
 
 8 Mann v. D. & H. C. Co., 91 N. Y. 500 ; Booth v. B. & A. R. R., 73 N. Y. 
 40 ; Pantzar v. T. F. I. Co., 99 N. Y. 368 ; Benzing v. Steinway, 101 N. Y. 547. 
 
 * Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40; Lewis v. St. L. & I. M. Ry., 59 Mo. 
 495 ; Hall v. M. P. Ry., 74 Id. 298 ; C. C. R. R. v. Ogden, 3 Colo. 499 ; Porter 
 v. H. & St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 44. 
 
 5 Hough v. T. & P. Ry., 100 U. S. 213 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46 ; Ford 
 v. F. R. R-, 110 Mass. 241 ; P. & N. Y. C R. R. v. Leslie, 16 Weekly Notes 
 of Tases (Penna.) 321 ; C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Avery, 109 111. 314, 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 649 ; II. & T. C. Ry. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 231 ; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Jackson, 53 111. 492 ; Indiana Car Co. 
 v. Parker, 100 Ind. 191 ; Gunter v. G. Mfg. Co., 18 S. C. 262 ; A., T. & S. F. 
 Ry. v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243, 31 Kans. 197, 15 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 312; Gilmore v. U. P. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 866, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R Cas. 304; Lawless v. C. R. R. R., 136 Mass. 1, 18 Am. & Eng.
 
 330 NEGLECT TO INSPECT. 
 
 operation, and to take due care that its servants' fellow- 
 servants are selected with care; 1 the omission to exer- 
 cise that care in either respect necessarily fixes the 
 liability of the railway, whatever be the rank of the 
 servant to whom the railway has delegated the perform- 
 ance of that duty. It follows that the duty of inspec- 
 tion being a duty whose performance is incumbent on 
 the railway, the railway is liable where that duty is 
 neglected or carelessly performed by the servant to 
 whom it has been entrusted; 2 thus, in Hough v. T. & 
 P. Ry., 3 where the railway was held liable for the death 
 of an engine-driver caused by the defective condition 
 of the engine, which was due to the negligence of those 
 servants of the railway, who were charged with the 
 duty of inspecting and directing the repairs of engines, 
 Harlan, J., said (p. 218) : " a railroad corporation may 
 be controlled by competent, watchful, and prudent 
 directors, who exercise the greatest caution in the selec- 
 tion of a superintendent or general manager, under 
 whose supervision and orders its affairs and business in 
 
 R. R. Cas. 9G ; T., W. & W. Ry. v. Ingraham, 77 111. 309 ; Davis ?<. C. V. R. R., 
 55 Vt. 84, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173; Ryan v. C. & N. W. Ry., 60 111. 171. 
 i Laning v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. Y. 521 ; II. & B. T. R. R. v. Decker, 82 
 Penna. St. 119, 84 Id. 419 ; Frazier v. P. R. R., 38 Id. 104; Patterson v. P. & 
 C. R. R., 76 Id. 394; O. & M. Ry. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 554; T. M. R. R. D.Whitmore, 58 Tex. 276, 11 Am.& Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 195 ; Tyson v. S. & N. A. R. R., 61 Ala. 554 ; McDermott v. H. & St. J. R. R., 
 73 Mo. 516, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 85 ; Flike v. B. & A. R. R., 53 N. Y. 
 549 ; Booth v. B & A. R. R, 73 N. Y. 38. 
 
 2 Durkin v. Sharp, 88 N.Y. 225, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 520; Kain v. 
 Smith, 80 N. Y. 458, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545 ; Fay v. M. & St. L. Ry., 
 30 Minn. 231, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 193; Drymala v. Thompson, 26 
 Minn. 40 ; Long v. P. R. R., 65 Mo. 225 ; Pantzar v. T. F. I. M. Co., 99 N. Y. 
 368 ; Cooper v. P., C. & St. L. R. R , 24 W. Va. 37, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 501, note; Schultz v. Ry., 48 Wise. 375; M. P. Ry. v. Condon, 78 
 Mo. 567, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 583; Long v. P. Ry., 65 Mo. 225; King 
 r. M. By., 14 Fed. Rep. 277, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 119; Brann v. C, R. I. 
 & P. Ry., 53 Iowa 595 ; Tierney v. M. & St. L. Ry-, Minn. , 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 545. 
 
 3 100 U. S. 213.
 
 NEGLECT TO INSPECT. 331 
 
 all of its departments are conducted. The latter, in 
 turn, may observe the same caution in the appointment 
 of subordinates at the head of the several branches or 
 departments of the company's service. But the obli- 
 gation still remains to provide and maintain in suitable 
 condition the machinery and apparatus to be used by 
 its employes, an obligation the more important, and the 
 degree of diligence in its performance the greater, in 
 proportion to the dangers which may be encountered. 
 Those, at least, in the organization of the corporation 
 who are invested with, controlling or superior authority 
 in that regard represent its legal personality; their 
 negligence, from which injury results, is the negligence 
 of the corporation. The latter cannot, in respect of 
 such matters, interpose between it and the servant who 
 has been injured without fault on his part, the personal 
 responsibility of an agent, who, in exercising the mas- 
 ter's authority, has violated the duty he owes, as well 
 to the servant as to the corporation. To guard against 
 misapplication of these principles, we should say that 
 the corporation is not to be held as guaranteeing or 
 warranting the absolute safety under all circumstances, 
 or the perfection in all its parts, of the machinery or 
 apparatus which may be provided for the use of em- 
 ployes. Its duty in that respect to its employes is dis- 
 charged when, but only when, its agents, whose business 
 it is to supply such instrumentalities, exercise due care 
 as well in their purchase originally as in keeping and 
 maintaining them in such condition as to be reasonably 
 and adequately safe for use by employes." So in N. P. 
 K. R. v. Herbert, 1 where the railway was held liable to 
 a yard hand for injuries caused by the negligently de- 
 fective condition of the brake, draw-bar, and bumper 
 
 1 116 U. S. 642.
 
 332 NEGLECT TO INSPECT. 
 
 of a car, Field, J., said : " it is equally well settled, 
 however, that it is the duty of the employer to select 
 and retain servants who are fitted and competent for 
 the service, and to furnish sufficient and safe materials, 
 machinery, or other means by which it is to be per- 
 formed, and to keep them in repair and order. This 
 duty he cannot delegate to a servant so as to exempt 
 himself from liability for injuries caused to another 
 servant by its omission. Indeed, no duty required of 
 him for the safety and protection of his servants can be 
 transferred so as to exonerate him from such liability." 
 So in Mann v. D. & H. C. Co., 1 where the railway was 
 held liable for the negligence of a freight conductor, 
 who, in selecting at the request of the yardmaster at a 
 way station, from his train hands, the one who was to 
 signal and stop an approaching train, made choice of 
 one Townsend, a young and inexperienced servant who 
 had only once before flagged a train at night, and who 
 had on that occasion so negligently performed the duty 
 that he was then discharged from the service, but sub- 
 sequently reinstated, Andrews, J., said : " it would be 
 unreasonable that the master should confer upon a sub- 
 ordinate the power to select a man for so important a 
 duty as that entrusted to Townsend, and be exonerated 
 from responsibility on the ground that the subordinate 
 was negligent in its performance." 
 
 310. On the other hand, in Wigmore v. Jay, 2 which 
 was decided in 1850, the plaintiff' 's decedent, a brick- 
 layer in the employment of the defendant, a master 
 builder, was killed by the fall of a scaffolding resulting 
 from the unsoundness of a pole, whose unsoundness had 
 been brought to the notice of the defendant's foreman, 
 but the defendant took no part in the erection of the 
 
 1 91 N. Y. 495, 12 Am. & Eng. K. E. Cas. 199. s 5 Exch. 354.
 
 NEGLECT OF MASTER'S DUTY. 333 
 
 scaffolding, and the unsoundness of the pole was not 
 brought to his notice. At the trial Pollock, C. B., 
 directed a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that 
 as the defendant bad not personally attended to the 
 erection of the scaffold, the action could not be main- 
 tained, and a rule for a new trial was refused. So in 
 Gallagher v. Piper, 1 where the plaintiff being employed 
 in constructing a scaffolding for a building which 
 the defendants, who were builders, were engaged in 
 erecting, and having unavailingly applied for more 
 boards to Phear, the defendants' "general foreman or 
 manager," was injured in falling from the scaffold, which 
 was insufficient and unsafe to the knowledge of Phear, 
 but not to the knowledge of the defendants, who did not 
 personally interfere with the work ; after a verdict for 
 the plaintiff a rule for a new trial was made absolute. 
 Erie, C. J., and Wiles, J., held that Wigmore v. Jay, 2 
 was a conclusive authority for holding Phear to be a 
 fellow-servant. Williams, J., said: "the doubt I enter- 
 tain is whether Phear was not rather a sort of deputy- 
 master than a fellow-workman of the plaintiff, so that a 
 notice of the insufficiency of the materials to him would 
 be notice to the defendants themselves. Looking, how- 
 ever, at the evidence here I do not find enough to war- 
 rant the conclusion that Phear was intended to stand in 
 the place of the defendants, so as to bind them by his 
 acts or omissions in this respect." Willes, J., said : " it is 
 true he (Phear) filled a superior position, but still he 
 was a servant, and I am unable to draw any distinction, 
 in this respect, between one description of servant and 
 another, so long as that relation of master and servant 
 exists, and the party injured and the person whose neg- 
 ligence caused the injury are employed under one 
 common master. If this had been the case of a person, 
 
 1 16 C. B. N. S. 669, 111 E. C. L. * 5 Exch. 354.
 
 334 NEGLECT OF MASTER'S DUTY. 
 
 who might be said to have authority to act for the 
 master as a kind of universal agent, I should have been 
 prepared to consider the suggestions thrown out by my 
 brother Byles in his judgment in Clarke v. Holmes, and 
 see whether he could come within the denomination of 
 servant at all. But, before I could bring myself to say 
 that such an agent did not come within the rule, I should 
 take time to look into the subject, and especially to con- 
 sider the position of that most authoritative of all agents, 
 the master of a ship. I should like to consider whether, 
 if the master of a ship, without the knowledge of his 
 owners, were to start from an intermediate port with the 
 vessel in a damaged and unseaworthy condition, and he 
 was in consequence driven on shore or upon a rock and 
 some of the crew thereby sustained personal injury, it 
 would be just or reasonable to hold the owners to be 
 liable to the sailors as they would undoubtedly be to 
 third persons. But it is unnecessary to discuss that 
 here, for it is plain that Phear was as much a servant 
 of the defendants as was any one of the labourers em- 
 ployed under his direction and control." Byles, J., 
 said, in his dissenting judgment: "lie (Phear) was not 
 merely the foreman or manager pro hac vice, but had 
 been the general manager of the defendants' works for 
 many years, about twenty-four or twenty-five years. 
 He had the entire management of the men employed 
 under him, engaging them and dismissing them as he 
 thought fit. * * * He was acting-master. At all events, 
 there was evidence for the jury that such was his posi- 
 tion. Take the case of a large builder, who is never 
 seen near his work, but who trusts the entire conduct 
 of his business to a foreman or manager, who is eyes, 
 ears, tongue, brains, and everything to him. Is not the 
 master liable for acts of negligence of his employe (for 
 I will not use the term 'servant,' which, like that of
 
 NEGLECT OF MASTER'S DUTY. 335 
 
 'foreman,' is susceptible of many meanings), whilst act- 
 ing thus for him ? If these defendants had been a cor- 
 poration aggregate they must have employed somebody 
 to represent them. Take the case of a railway company 
 employing a general traffic manager, and through his 
 negligence an accident happens to a servant of the com- 
 pany — is it to be said that the party injured is without 
 remedy because the corporation is incapable of personal 
 misconduct ? If the rule relied on be found so incon- 
 venient that it cannot be applied to a case like that, 
 ought it to be applied here ? That depends very much 
 on the position of Phear. If he had been a servant, 
 though a superior one, I should have entertained some 
 doubt, but I do not think he stood in the position of a 
 servant at all. He stood rather in the position of a 
 general agent for the defendants. It is true he was 
 called the foreman, but that is a word the meaning of 
 which is extremely various. The case of Wigmore v- 
 Jay is distinguishable in this, that there it does not ap- 
 pear that the person whose negligence caused the acci- 
 dent was anything more than foreman for the particular 
 work." The judgments of the House of Lords in 
 Wilson v. Merry, and of the Common Pleas in Tarrant 
 v. Webb, have been referred to in section 299. The 
 English rule is adopted in some American cases in 
 which it is held that inspectors of car repairs are fellow- 
 servants of train hands, and that railways are not liable 
 for injuries caused by the negligence of such inspectors. 1 
 311. Briefly stated, the doctrine of the English cases 
 amounts to this, that the master impliedly contracts, 
 not that he will personally provide the instruraentali- 
 
 1 C. & X. R. R. v. Webb, 12 Ohio St. 475 ; Smith v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Gas. 140 ; L. M. R. R. t>. Fitzpatrick, 42 Obio St. 318, 17 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 578; Mackin v. B. & A. R. R., 135 Mass. 301, 15 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 196 ; N., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Foster, Tenn. , 11 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 180 ; Gibson v. N. C. Ry., 22 Hun 289.
 
 336 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN RULES. 
 
 ties of the servant's work, but that he will not be negli • 
 gent in his selection or retention of the servants whom 
 he charges with that duty, and that, therefore, on the 
 basis of that implied contract, a servant necessarily as- 
 sumes as a risk incident to his employment, not only 
 the danger of injury from the negligence of those fel- 
 low-servants with whom he is, either remotely or nearly, 
 associated in the performance of his work, but also, 
 and equally, the danger of injury from the negli- 
 gence of those fellow-servants whom the master has 
 charged with the duty of supplying and maintaining in 
 repair the instrumentalities of the work. On the other 
 hand, the doctrine of the American cases is, that the ex- 
 ercise of care in the construction, inspection, and mainte- 
 nance in repair of the instrumentalities of labour, is, by 
 the implied contract of a service, imposed upon the 
 master as a duty, and that, therefore, the non-perform- 
 ance of the duty renders him liable for such injuries as 
 may result from that non-performance. The point of 
 divergence in the cases is, therefore, in their differing 
 conception of the master's implied contract, and the 
 difficulty in accepting the view laid down in the Eng- 
 lish cases is, that they limit the master's duty of exer- 
 cising care in the provision and maintenance in repair 
 of the instrumentalities of labour, and in the selection 
 of fellow-servants, to the mere exercise of care in the 
 selection of the servant to whom the master delegates 
 that duty ; whereas, the duty being incumbent upon 
 the master, its non-performance ought, in justice, to fix 
 his liability, without reference to the character of the 
 agency to whom he may delegate the performance of the 
 duty. 
 
 312. Nevertheless, in the consideration of this sub- 
 ject, it must be borne in mind, that, under the Ameri- 
 can rule, the railway does not guarantee to its servants
 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 66< 
 
 the soundness of the appliances of labour which it fur- 
 nishes to those servants, or the infallibility of its in- 
 spection of those appliances, or the intelligence and dis- 
 cretion of its other servants ; but it only guarantees 
 that those to whom it delegates its duty of constructing, 
 inspecting, and maintaining in repair the instrumental- 
 ities of labour, and of selecting and retaining its other 
 servants, will not be negligent in the performance of the 
 duty thus delegated to them. In other words, the rail- 
 way is not an insurer of the result of the exercise of 
 the delegated authority, but it does contract that that 
 delegated authority shall be exercised with due care. 
 Therefore, when the railway has done its duty in the 
 construction, inspection, and maintenance in repair of 
 the instrumentalities of labour, and in the selection of 
 fellow-servants, it is not to be held liable for injuries to. 
 a servant that result solely from the negligence of his 
 fellow-servants. Where the negligence of the railway 
 in supplying defective appliances is the proximate cause 
 of injury to a servant, it is no defence to the railway 
 that the negligence of a fellow-servant concurred in 
 causing the injury. 1 Nor is it a defence to the railway 
 that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow- 
 servant of the injured person concurring with the rail- 
 way's proximate negligence in sending out a train with 
 an inadequate force of train hands;' 2 but where the 
 negligence of a fellow-servant is the proximate cause of 
 injury to a servant, the concurrence of negligence on 
 
 1 G. T. Ry. v. Hammings, 106 U. S. 700 ; Ellis v. N. Y., L. E. &. W. It. K., 
 95 N. Y. 546, 17 Am. & Eug. R. R. Cas. 641 ; Cone v. D., L. & W. R. R., 81 N. 
 Y. 207, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 57; Pauimier v. E. Ry., 5 Yroom 151 ; 
 Crutchfield v. R. & D. R. R., 76 X. ' '. 320; A, T. & S. F. K. U. v. Bolt, 29 
 Kans. 14;;, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206; Lawless v. C. R. R. R., 136 Mass. 
 1, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 96 ; Elmer v. Locke, 133 Mass. 575, 15 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas 300; Ransicr v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 Minn. 331, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 601 ; Stringham v. Stewart, 100 N. Y. 516. 
 
 3 Booth v. B. & A. R. K., 73 X. Y. 38. 
 22
 
 338 MINOR SERVANTS. 
 
 the part of the railway, either in supplying the defec- 
 tive appliances, 1 or in failing to provide an adequate 
 force of servants, 2 will not render the railway liable for 
 the injury. Where a machine consists of separate 
 parts, which must be put together before the machine 
 can be operated, an injury to a servant resulting from 
 the insufficient putting together of those parts cannot 
 be said to be due to the failure of the railway to provide 
 safe appliances ; and when such parts are insufficiently 
 put together by a fellow-servant of the injured servant, 
 the railway is not liable, for the negligence is not its 
 own but that of the fellow-servant. 3 
 
 VI. THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS TO THEIR MINOR 
 
 SERVANTS. 
 
 313. It is the duty of a railway to its minor servants 
 to exercise a reasonable care for their safety, and not to 
 place them in positions of danger unsuited to their 
 years and capacity. 4 Nevertheless a minor servant, if 
 he be of more than tender years, takes upon himself the 
 ordinary risks of the service, including the risk of in- 
 jury from the negligence of his fellow-servants. 5 In 
 
 1 Pease v. C. & N. W. Ry., 61 Wise. 163, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 527. 
 
 2 Harvey v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 88 N. Y. 481, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa 
 515. 
 
 s Peschel v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 62 Wise. 338, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545 
 * Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45; St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Valirius, 56 Ind. 511 : 
 Coombs v. N. B. Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 522 ; Penna. Co. v. Long, 94 Ind. 250 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345. 
 
 5 Viets v. T. A. A. & G. T. Ry., 55 Mich. 120, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 11 
 fl. & G. N. R. R. v. Miller, 51 Tex. 270 ; Gartland v. T. W. & W. Ry., 67 111 
 498 ; King v. B. & W. R. R., 9 Cush. 112 ; T. & P. Ry. v. Carlton, 60 Tex. 397, 
 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 350 ; Greenwald v. M. H. & O. Ry., 49 Mich. 197 
 8 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 133; McGinnis v. C. S. B. Co., 49 Mich. 466, 8 Am 
 * Eng R. R. Cas. 135 ; Youll v. S. C & P. Ry., 56 Iowa 346, 21 Am. & Eng 
 U. R. Cas. 589.
 
 MINOR SERVANTS. 330 
 
 this connection the case of U. P. E. K. v. Fort 1 must be 
 considered. The facts in that case were, that the in- 
 jured servant, a boy of sixteen years of age, who had 
 been, with his father's consent, engaged as a helper to 
 a workman in a railway's machine shop, with the obli- 
 gation of obeying that workman's orders, was, on one 
 occasion several months after his entry into the service, 
 ordered by that workman to ascend a ladder resting on 
 a shaft among rapidly moving and dangerous machinery 
 for the purpose of adjusting a belt which had gotten out 
 of place, and having been injured by acting in obedience 
 to that order the father brought an action to recover 
 damages for a breach of the contract of service. Dillon, 
 J., left it to the jury to find whether, or not, the duty 
 imposed upon the minor servant by the order of the 
 workman was within the contract of service ; and he 
 further directed them, that if that duty was not within 
 the contract of service, and if the imposition of that 
 duty upon the minor was wrongful and negligent, the 
 railway was liable therefor, for " the principle, that the 
 master is not liable for the neglect of a co- employe in 
 the same service has no application, or no just applica- 
 tion, to such a case." The report is not very explicit, 
 but the jury appear to have found generally for the 
 plaintiff, and also, specially, that the injured servant 
 was engaged to serve under the workman, and " was re- 
 quired to obey his orders," that the order of the work- 
 man, in obeying which the minor was injured, was not 
 within the scope of the minor's duty, but was within 
 that of the workman, was not a reasonable one, and that 
 a prudent man would not have ordered the minor to 
 perform it. Judgment for the plaintiff on this verdict 
 was affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 
 1 17 Wall. 553.
 
 340 MINOR SERVANTS. 
 
 Bradley, J., dissenting. Davis, J., put the judgment 
 of affirmance on the ground that the general rule of 
 the master's exemption from liability for injury done 
 to a servant by the negligence of a fellow-servant, being 
 founded upon the servant's implied undertaking to bear 
 the risk of injury from such negligence, was inapplica- 
 ble, because the act in the doing of which the minoi 
 servant was injured was not within the contract of ser- 
 vice, and he added, somewhat inconsequently, "if it 
 were otherwise, principals would be released from all 
 obligation to make reparation to an employe in a subor- 
 dinate position for any injury caused by the wrongful 
 conduct of the person placed over him, whether they 
 were fellow-servants in the same common service or not." 
 He further said, referring to the workman's order to 
 the injured servant : " for the consequences of this hasty 
 action the company are liable, either upon the maxim 
 of respondeat sujierior, or upon the obligation arising 
 out of the contract of service. The order of Collett (the 
 workman) was their order." The judgment in this 
 case is open to obvious criticism. The injured servant 
 was not an infant of tender year's, nor an inexperienced 
 servant. He was a boy of sixteen years of age, who 
 had had the experience of " several months " of service 
 in the railway's machine shop. His father, by his con- 
 sent to the contract of service, had impliedly undertaken 
 on his behalf to bear the risk of the very injury that 
 happened, for the jury found specially that by the 
 contract of service the boy was required to obey the 
 workman's orders. The workman was not a vice-prin- 
 cipal unless every superior servant is as to every inferior 
 servant to be held to be a vice-principal. With this 
 case there can be profitably contrasted Murphy v. Smith, 1 
 
 1 19 C. B. N. S. 361, 115 E. C. L.
 
 MINOR SERVANTS. 341 
 
 which, although cited upon the argument of U. P. K. 
 R v. Fort, was not noticed by Davis, J., in his judg- 
 ment. In the English case the defendant was the pro- 
 prietor of a lucifer match factory ; one Simlack was his 
 foreman, or general manager, and under him was a 
 workman named Dehor, who, in Simlack's absence, as- 
 sumed the managment of the establishment ; the plain- 
 tiff, a boy of sixteen years of age, having been engaged 
 by Simlack as the defendant's servant, undertook, with- 
 out any direction from Dehor, but in his presence, to 
 perform a part of the process of making matches which 
 it was not his duty to do, and which if not done skil- 
 fully was dangerous, and in doing that he was injured. 
 There was no proof that Simlack was absent at the time. 
 After a verdict for the plaintiff, the court made absolute 
 a rule to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that while 
 there was evidence that Simlack was a vice-principal, 
 there was no such evidence as regards Dehor, w T ho must 
 Bewconsidered as only a fellow T -servant, for whose negli- 
 gence the defendant was not to be held liable. As the 
 result of a careful comparison of these cases, I venture 
 to think that Murphy v. Smith was rightly, and U. P. 
 R P. v. Fort wrongly, decided. 
 
 314. Where a railway receives into its service a minor 
 without the consent of his father, or, if the father be 
 dead, of his mother, and the minor be injured without 
 fault upon his part, the railway is liable therefor to the 
 father, or, if the father be dead, to the mother j 1 but if 
 the minor has, with his parents' consent, been taken into 
 the railway service to work in a railway yard, the fact 
 that he is afterwards, with his own consent, put on duty as 
 a brakeman on the line, is not on the part of the railway 
 
 1 Hamilton v. G., H. & S. A. Ry., 54 Tex. 556, 4 Am. & Eng. B.B. Cas. 528 ; 
 H. & G. N. R. R. v. Miller, 49 Tex. 322 ; O. & M. Ry. v. Tindall, 13 Ind. 866 ; 
 Penna. Co. v. Long, 94 Ind. 250, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345.
 
 342 servants' undertaking of risks. 
 
 such negligence as renders it liable for injuries happen- 
 ing to him. 1 In G. K. & I. E-. R. v. Showers, 2 where a 
 minor servant, who had heen engaged without the con- 
 sent of his father, was killed by the negligence of his 
 fellow-servants, the recovery was limited to the reason- 
 able value to the parent of his son's services during the 
 period of his engagement with the railway. 3 
 
 VII. THE SERVANT'S IMPLIED UNDERTAKING TO BEAR 
 THE RISKS INCIDENT TO THE SERVICE. 
 
 Railway servants do not impliedly take vpon themselves the risk of in- 
 jury from the railway's non-performance of its duty, either in sup- 
 plying or maintaining the appliances of labour, or in selecting or 
 retaining servants ; hut they do take upon themselves the ordinary 
 risks of the service, including the negligence of their fellow-servants. 
 
 315. Railway servants, as has been stated, do not 
 take the risk of injury from the railway's failure to per- 
 form its duty in constructing and maintaining in repair 
 its line, rolling stock, machinery, and appliances, nor in 
 exercising due care in its selection or retention of its 
 other servants ; nor do they take the risk of injury 
 from the negligent participation of the railway's vice- 
 principals in their work ; but they do take the risk of 
 injury from those dangers which are necessarily inci- 
 dent to the service upon which they have entered, and 
 which do not result from negligence on the part of the 
 railway. 4 The rule is nowhere more clearly stated than 
 
 1 T. & P. Ry. v. Carlton, 60 Tex. 397, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 350. 
 
 2 71 Ind. 451, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 9. 
 
 8 See also C. & G. E. R. R. v. Harney, 28 Ind. 28. 
 
 4 Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. Ry., 5 Ex. 343 ; Riley v. Baxendale, 6 H. & N. 
 445 ; Wigget v. Fox, 11 Ex.832, which is sometimes cited in support of this 
 proposition, is explained by Cliannell, B., in Abraham v. Reynolds, 5 II. & N. 
 143, and is criticised by Cockburn, C. J., in Rourke v. Colliery Co., 2 C. P. D. 
 207 ; Penna. Co. v. Lynch, 90 111. 334 ; St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Britz,72 Id. 261 ; 
 Clark v. C. E. & Q. R. R., 92 Id. 43; C. P. Mfg. Co. v. Ballou, 71 Id. 418;
 
 servants' undertaking of risks. 343 
 
 in C. & X. R R. v. Webb, 1 by Sutcliff, C. J., who says : 
 " a person who seeks and engages in any employment 
 thereby assumes the ordinary risk, hazard, and danger 
 incident to the place and the duties which, for the con- 
 sideration agreed upon, he has undertaken to discharge. 
 This is equally true of employes upon railroad trains as 
 well as elsewhere, and in all other kinds of business and 
 positions. Whether the employe seek employment in a 
 machine shop, or on board a steamboat, upon a railroad 
 train, or to pilot rafts over dangerous rapids, to labour 
 in a powder-mill, or to serve upon a whale ship, or upon 
 a voyage of discovery in the Arctic regions ; in each 
 and all of the several employments and positions chosen, 
 the employe, by entering the service voluntarily, takes 
 upon himself the hazard and dangers properly incident 
 to the service in which he engages ; and the employer 
 is, in no sense, from the relation they sustain to each 
 other, a warrantor of the safety of the employe." So, 
 in Sweeney v. B. & J. E. Co.. 2 Danforth, J., said : "the 
 general rule is, that the servant accepts the service, sub- 
 ject to the risks incidental to it ; and where the ma- 
 chinery and implements of the employe's business are 
 at that time of a certain kind or condition, and the 
 servant knows it, he can make no claim upon the mas- 
 ter to furnish other or different safeguards." 
 
 316. There is no implied obligation upon the part of 
 the master to indemnify the servant against the ordi- 
 nary risks of the service, and the servant, when injured, 
 can only recover upon proof that the master knew of a 
 danger which was unknown to the servant, and which 
 
 Hughes v. W. & St. P. R. R., 27 Minn. 137 ; Gibson v. E. By., 63 N. Y. 449 ; 
 DeForest v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 264, 8 Am. & Eng. R. B. ( '.is. 495 ; Sweeney v. 
 C. P. Ry., 87 Cal. 15, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cos. 151 ; Naylor v. C. & N. W. By, 
 5.°> Wise. 661. 
 » 12 Ohio St. 475. ' 101 N. Y. 520, 524.
 
 344 RISKS TAKEN BY TRAIN HANDS. 
 
 the master did not make known to him. 1 Upon this 
 principle, train hands take the risk of injury from the 
 negligent movement of other trains; 2 from the explo- 
 sion of nitro-glycerine while being moved in or loaded 
 upon cars; 3 from the danger of strain in handling- 
 heavy freight; 4 from the derailment of their train by 
 its collision with trespassing cattle on an unfenced 
 line; 5 from being struck by engines or cars moving 
 in a railway yard, without notice and unattended; 6 
 from accumulations of ice and snow on or near the 
 track; 7 from the jolting of cars on a siding, by rea- 
 son of worn rails being used in its construction; 8 from 
 slipping on ashes dropped from the fire-box of an en- 
 gine while coupling cars ; 9 from the jolting of freight 
 cars in making a flying switch, while the injured ser- 
 
 1 Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1 ; Williams v. Clough, 3 H. & N. 258; 
 Watling v. Oastler, I.. R. 6 Ex. 73 ; Griffiths v. L. & St. K. Docks Co., 12 Q. B. 
 D. 493, 13 Id. 259 ; Seymour v. Maddox, 16 Q. B. 327, 71 E. C. L. ; Sykes v. 
 Packer, 99 Penua. St. 405. 
 
 2 Randall v. B. & O. R. R, 109 U. S. 478 ; Slater v. Jewett, 84 N. Y. 61, 5 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 515 ; McCosker v. L. I. R. R., 84 N. Y. 77, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Gas. 564. 
 
 3 Foley v. C. & N. W. Ry., 48 Mich. 622, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 
 161. 
 
 * Walsh v. St. P. & D. R. R., 27 Minn. 367, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 
 114. 
 
 5 Sweeny v. C. P. R. R., 57 Cal. 15, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 151 ; Flem- 
 ing v. St. P. & D. R. R., 27 Minn. 111. 
 
 6 Kelley v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 53 Wise. 74, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 469 ; 
 Hallihan v. II. & St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 117 ; C 
 & X. W. Ry. v. Donahue, 75 111. 106; T. & P. Ry. v. Harrington, 62 Tex. 597, 
 '21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 571 ; Speed v. A. & P. R. R., 71 Mo. 303, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. E. B. Cas. 77. In Berg v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 50 Wise. 419, 2 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 70, the railway was held liable, under a statute of Wisconsin, 
 to a trackman who was injured while working in a railway yard, by the 
 failure of the hands on a moving train to give him notice of its ap- 
 proach. 
 
 7 Piquegno v. C & G. T. Ry., 52 Mich. 40, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 210 ; 
 cf. Fifield v. X. K. R., 42 X. H. 225. 
 
 8 M. C. R. R. v. Austin, 40 Mich. 247. 
 
 9 Hughes*. W. & St. P. R. R., 27 Minn. 137.
 
 RISKS TAKEN BY TRAIN HANDS. 345 
 
 vant is standing on the top of the cars; 1 from being 
 knocked oif their cars by a bridge when their duty re- 
 quires them to ride on the top of a freight car ; 2 and 
 from being knocked off their cars by the projecting 
 awning of an elevator; 3 or by the projecting roof of a 
 station. 4 Train hands also take the risks of injury from 
 inequalities in the track and the defects of appliances, 
 whose condition is known to them, and of which they 
 have not complained; 5 and of their feet being caught 
 in a frog at a switch ; 6 and of travelling to the repair 
 shop with a patently defective car; 7 of falling through 
 a railway bridge in process of being repaired while 
 walking over it in the discharge of their duty. 8 Train 
 hands also take the risks of defects in the cars, wheie 
 the existence of those defects is not the result of negli- 
 gence on the part of the railway, as, for instance, the 
 unexpected breaking of a brake-staff; or the breaking 
 
 1 Yorell v. S. C. & P. Ry., 66 Iowa 346, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 2 P. & C. Ry. v. Sentmayer, 92 Penna. St. 276, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 508 . 
 Owen v. N. Y. C. R. R., 1 Lans. 108 ; Devitt v. P. R. R., 50 Mo. 302 ; B. & O. 
 R. R. v. Strieker, 51 Md. 47 ; Rains v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 71 Mo. 164, 8 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 610 ; Wells v. B., C, R. & N. R. R., 56 Iowa 520, 2 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243; Baylor v. D., L. & W. Ry., 40 N. J. L. 23; 
 Gibson v. M. Ry., 2 Ont. (Can.) 658 ; Clark v. R. & D. R. R. 78 Va. 709, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 78 ; sed contra, B. & O. & C. R. R. v. Rowan, 104 Ind. 
 88, 23 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 390. 
 
 3 Clark v. St. P. & S. C. R. R., 28 Minn. 128, 2 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 240. 
 * Gibson v. E. Ry., 63 N. Y. 449 ; sed. cf. W. Ry. v. Elliott, 98 111. 481, 4 
 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 651. It would seem that the railway ought to bo held 
 liable where the construction, collision with which does the injury, is under 
 the control of the railway. 
 
 5 P. & R. R. R. v. Schertle, 97 Penna. St. 450 ; DeForest v. Jewett, 88 N. Y. 
 264, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 495. 
 
 8 L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 540 ; Smith v. St. L., K. C. & N. 
 Ry., 69 Mo. 32. 
 
 7 Flannagan v. C. & N. W. Ry., 45 Wise. 98, 50 Id. 462, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 150; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Ward, 61 111. 130; Watson v. II. & T.C. Ky., 58 
 Tex. 434, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 213. 
 
 8 Koontz v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 65 Iowa 224, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 85. 
 
 9 Smith v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 42 Wise. 520.
 
 340 RISKS TAKEN BY TRAIN HANDS. 
 
 of ;i ladder on a car from the shortness of a bolt fasten 
 ing the slat; 1 or the breaking of the eye bolt of a brake 
 chain from a latent defect. 2 Train hands also take the 
 ordinary risks in coupling cars, 3 even though the car 
 load project beyond the ends of the platforms of the 
 car. 4 Train hands also take the risk of coupling defec- 
 tive cars which have been marked as such and put aside, 
 for the purpose of moving them to the repair shop, 5 and 
 of shunting or switching a defective car in a railway 
 yard, even though no express notice was given of the 
 defective condition of the particular car; 6 but it has 
 been held that they do not take the risk of negligence 
 
 1 Ballou v. C. & N. W. Ry., 54 Wise. 257, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 480 ; C. 
 & A. R. R. v. Piatt, 89 111. 141 ; T. W. & W. Ry. v. Ingrahani, 77 Id. 309. 
 
 2 Painton v. N. C. Ry., 83 N. Y. 7, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 454. 
 
 8 Day v. T. C. S. & D. Ry., 42 Mich. 523, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 126 ; T. 
 W. & W. R. R. v. Black, 88 111. 112 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. McCormick, 74 Ind. 
 440 ; M. C. R. R. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 101 ; 
 Viets v. T., A., A. & G. T. Ry., 55 Mich. 120, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 11 ; 
 M. P. Ry. v. Lyde, 57 Tex. 505, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 188 ; Skellenger v. 
 C. & N. W. Ry., 61 Iowa 714, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 206 ; Hathaway v. 
 M. C. R. R., 51 Mich. 253, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 249 ; C. & R. I. Ry. v. 
 Clark, 108 111. 113, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 261 ; B., C, R. & N. R. R. v. 
 Coates, 62 Iowa 487, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 265 ; Rodman v. M. C. R. R., 
 55 Mich. 57, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 521 ; Pease v. C. & N. W. Ry , 61 
 Wise. 163, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 527; Fowler v. C. & N. W. Ry., 61 
 Wise. 169, 17 Am. & Eng^ R. R. Cas. 536; Umback v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 83 
 Ind. 191, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 98 ; Smith v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258, 2 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 140; N. C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wheeler, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 741, 4 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 633; H.& T. C. Ry. v. Myers, 55 Tex. 110, 8 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 114 ; Batterson v. C. Sz G. T. Ry., 49 Mich. 184, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 123 ; L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Townsend, 41 Ark. 382, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 619 ; A., T. & S.F. R. R. v. Wagner, 33 Kana. 660, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 637. 
 
 * N. C Ry. v. Husson, 13 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 361, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 241 ; A., T. & S. F. Ry. v. Plunkett, 25 Kans. 188, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 127 ; Day v. T., C, S. & D. Ry., 42 Mich. 523, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 126 ; Hamilton v. D. M. V. Ry., 36 Iowa 31 ; cf. Brown v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 
 31 Kans. 1, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 271. 
 
 5 Watson v. H. & T. C. R. R., 58 Tex. 434, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 213. 
 
 6 Yeaton v. B. & L. R. R., 135 Mass. 418, 15 Am. & Eng. E, R. Cas. 253; 
 Fraker v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 54, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 256.
 
 RISKS TAKEN BY FIREMEN, ETC. 347 
 
 of car inspectors in a yard in failing to mark damaged 
 cars, so as to give notice of the condition of such cars 
 to those who may be called on to coup^ them. 1 
 
 317. Firemen, or stokers, take the risk of injury from 
 "bucking" snow on the line, that is, from driving the 
 engine at speed into a snow bank for the purpose of 
 clearing the line of snow. 2 Station hands take the risk 
 of injury from throwing mail bags into moving trains. 3 
 Car repairers, while working beneath cars in a railway 
 yard take the risk of injury from the car being struck 
 by another car, when they habitually do such work 
 without asking that the car be protected by a flag ; 4 but 
 in one case the railway was held liable to a servant in- 
 jured while similarly engaged, the railway having con- 
 ceded by its answer that under its regulations the car 
 should have been protected by flags, 5 and in other simi- 
 lar cases of injury the railway was held liable by reason 
 of the failure of the foreman of the injured servant to 
 take precautions for his safety by guarding the car. 6 
 
 318. Labourers on the line take the risk of injury 
 from a defective condition of the roadbed when engaged 
 to repair it ; thus, in R, 1ST. Y. & P. K. K. v. Brick, 7 a 
 labourer engaged in the reconstruction of a dilapidated 
 line, and while being carried over the line in a construc- 
 tion train, was killed by the derailment of a train at a 
 level crossing, caused by the freezing of mud which 
 had been negligently permitted to fill up and remain in 
 
 1 Tierney v. M. & St. L. Ry., 33 Minn. 311, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545. 
 
 a Bryant v. B., C. R. & N. R. R, 66 Iowa 305, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 593. 
 
 3 Coolbroth v. M. C. R. R., 77 Me. 165, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 599. 
 
 * O'Rorke v. U. P. Ry., Colo. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 19; Penna. 
 Co. v. Stoeike, 104 111. 201, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 523. 
 
 5 Luebke v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 59 Wise. 127, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 183. 
 
 6 L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St. 221, 5 Am. & Eng. B. R. Cas. 
 549 ; Moore v. W., St. L. & P. Ry., 84 Mo. 481, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 509. 
 
 7 98 N, Y. 212, 21 Am. & Eng." R. R. Cas. 605.
 
 348 RISKS TAKEN BY LABOURERS. 
 
 the spaces between the rails and the planking of the 
 crossing. Judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff was 
 reversed in error, Miller, J., saying inter alia, "it may 
 be assumed, we think, that the deceased in performing 
 the service in which he was engaged and in travelling 
 on the construction train, understood that he was not 
 working upon a road which was finished and in good 
 repair, but upon one which, having been long neglected 
 and but little travelled and latterly only by construction 
 trains, subjected him to greater risks and perils than 
 would be incurred under ordinary circumstances. In 
 entering the defendant's service he assumed the hazards 
 incident to the same." On the other hand, in Madden 
 v. M. & St. L. Ry., 1 the railway was held liable to a 
 train hand on a gravel train engaged in resurfacing the 
 roadbed, the train being derailed by the bad condition of 
 the roadbed, Gilfillan, C. J., saying: "there is no differ- 
 ence as to the duty of the master and the assumption of 
 risk by the servant between an employment to make 
 repairs and any other employment. In all cases the 
 servant is held to take on himself the risks necessarily 
 incident to the employment, unless, perhaps, they be 
 latent and known to the master, but not known to nor 
 by the use of proper diligence, discoverable by the ser- 
 vant ; and in no case does he take on himself the risks 
 that arise by reason of neglect on the part of the master, 
 unless they be known to him, or by the use of proper 
 diligence are discoverable to him. * * * The fact that 
 the work in which the plaintiff was employed was that 
 of repairing, or making preparations to repair, the track 
 did not diminish its duty to furnish safe and suitable 
 means and instruments to do his work. As it required 
 him, i 1 that work, to use the old track it should have 
 had it reasonably safe for the purpose." On this sub- 
 
 1 32 Minn. 303, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 63.
 
 BISKS OF SPECIAL SERVICE. 349 
 
 ject, the doctrine of the Brick case would seem to be 
 sound. Labourers on the line also take the risk of in- 
 jury from the derailment of their train in pushing 
 through a snow bank ; x of a bank of earth caving in on 
 them while digging; 2 of the negligent movement of 
 trains upon the line ; 3 of being struck by a passing train 
 in a tunnel, while engaged in repairing the tunnel, 4 and 
 of being injured by defects in tools. 5 Well-diggers take 
 the risk of injury from the caving in of a well in pro- 
 cess of excavation. 6 An ostler in a railway's stable 
 takes the risk of being kicked by a vicious horse whose 
 character is known to him. 7 
 
 319. There are authorities for the proposition that 
 servants do not impliedly undertake to bear the risk of 
 injury in any special service, which does not fall within 
 their duties as defined by their contract of service, but 
 which they are ordered to perform by a superior officer, 
 as, for instance, where one who had been engaged as 
 brakeman on a passenger train, was injured while 
 coupling freight cars in a railway yard under the 
 orders of the superintendent of a division of the line, 8 
 or where a labourer in a railway yard who, having no 
 experience in coupling cars, was ordered by his foreman 
 to perform that service, and while so doing was injured 
 
 1 Howland v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 54 Wise. 226, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 578; M. & St. L. Ry. v. Morse, 30 Minn. 465, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168. 
 
 * Naylor v. C. & N. W. Ry., 53 Wise. 661, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 460; 
 Simmons v. C. & T. R. R., 110 111. 340, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 50; Morey 
 v. L. V. Coal Co , 55 Iowa G71 ; Rasmusson v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 65 Iowa 236, 
 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 54. 
 
 s P. R. R. v. Wachter,60 Md. 395, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 187 ; McGrath 
 v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., Mass. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 5 ; I. & G. N. 
 R. R. v. Hester, 64 Tex. 401, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 535 ; P., C. & St. L.R. 
 R. v. Leech, 41 Ohio St. 388, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 541, note. 
 
 4 Woodlt-v r. M. D. Ry., 2 Ex. D. 384. 
 
 5 L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Duffey, 35 Ark. 602, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 637. 
 
 6 G., H. & S. A. R. R. v. Lempe, 59 Tex. 19, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 201. 
 T G. & C. St. Ry. v. Bresmer, 94 Penna. St. 103. 
 
 • Jones v. L. S. & M. S. Rv.. 49 Mich. 573, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 221.
 
 350 fellow-servant's negligence. 
 
 by the negligence of an engine-driver ;* nor do servants 
 take the risks of negligence on the part of another rail- 
 way, upon whose line or premises they are compelled 
 to go in the performance of their duty to the railway 
 whom they serve, nor the risks of negligence on the 
 part of another railway which exercises either statutory 
 or contractual running powers over the line of the com- 
 pany they serve. 
 
 320. Railway servants also impliedly assume the 
 risk of injury from negligence on the part of their fel- 
 low-servants. This rule was not enunciated in Priestley 
 v. Fowler, 2 but it is the necessary result of the decision 
 in that case which rests the liability of the master upon 
 his personal negligence, for a master cannot be said to 
 be personally negligent if an injury is caused to a ser- 
 vant by the negligence of a fellow-servant, in whose 
 original selection and subsequent retention in his post 
 the master has exercised due care. The rule was first 
 distinctly enunciated in South Carolina in 1841, in 
 Murray v. S. C. R. R., 3 where a fireman having been 
 injured by the negligence of an engine-driver, the rail- 
 way was held not to be liable, for the reason that the 
 engine-driver no more represented the railway than 
 did the fireman, and each was liable to the railway 
 for himself and not for his fellow, and the railway was 
 not liable to either for the failure of the other. The 
 next case is Farwell v. B. & W. R. R., 4 in which judg- 
 ment was delivered in 1842 by Shaw, C. J. An engine- 
 driver having been injured by the negligence of a 
 switch-tender, the railway was held not to be liable, 
 and the great Chief Justice of Massachusetts rested the 
 
 1 Lalor v. C, B. & Q. R. R., 52 111. 401 ; see also C. & G. E. R. R. v. Harney, 
 28 Ind. 28 ; U. P. R. R. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553 ; CAN. W. Ry. v. Bayfield, 37 
 Mich. 205; Miller v. U. P. Ry., 17 Fed. Rep. 67. 
 
 1 3 M. & W. 1. 8 1 McMullan 385. 
 
 « 4 Mete. 49, 1 Redf. Am. Ry. Cas. 395.
 
 fellow-servant's negligence. 351 
 
 exemption of the railway from liability to the plaintiff 
 upon the ground that the liability of a master for the 
 negligence of his servant, acting in the course of his 
 employment, and within the scope of his authority, and 
 causing injury to a stranger, is dependent upon the 
 want of privity between the master and the stranger, 
 but that the liability of a master to a servant, for 
 injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant, 
 must, if it exist, be maintained upon the ground of an 
 implied contract upon the part of the master to indem- 
 nify every servant against such injuries, and that the 
 want of adjudged cases illustrating the applications of 
 such an implied contract, is a denial of its existence. 
 The Chief Justice also stated, with force, certain general 
 considerations of public policy, which were very similar 
 to those put forth by Abinger, C. B., in Priestley v. 
 Fowler, 1 but which I neither quote nor rely upon, be- 
 cause it seems to me that judicial enunciations of legal 
 principles should have a more stable foundation than 
 considerations of public policy, which are not always 
 capable of exact definition, and which, under changed 
 circumstances and conditions, may be of questionable 
 applicability. The rule was first applied in England 
 in Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. By., 2 decided in 1850. 
 In that case an administratrix having brought suit 
 under Lord Campbell's Act, averred in her declaration, 
 that her decedent, a servant upon a train of the de- 
 fendant, was killed in a collision by the negligence of 
 the defendant, etc. The defendant pleaded specially 
 that the collision was solely caused by the negligence 
 of the defendant's servants, who were fit and competent 
 persons to have the government and guidance of the 
 colliding trains, etc. On demurrer to this plea, judg- 
 ment was entered for the defendant, Alderson, B., say- 
 
 1 3 M. & W. 1. "5 Ex. 343.
 
 352 fellow-sekv ant's negligence. 
 
 ing, " the principle upon which a master is, in general, 
 liable to answer for accidents resulting from the negli- 
 gence or unskilfulness of his servant, is that the act of 
 his servant is, in truth, his own act. If the master is 
 himself driving his carriage, and from want of skill 
 causes injury to a passerby, he is, of course, responsible 
 for that want of skill. If, instead of driving the car- 
 riage with his own hands, he employs his servant to 
 drive it, the servant is but an instrument set in motion 
 by the master. It was the master's will that the ser- 
 vant should drive, and whatever the servant does in 
 order to give effect to his master's will, may be treated 
 by others as the act of the master, qui facit per alium, 
 facit per se. So far there is no difficulty. Equally 
 clear is it, that though a stranger may treat the act of the 
 servant as the act of his master, yet, the servant him- 
 self, by whose negligence or want of skill the accident 
 has occurred, cannot, and, therefore, he cannot defend 
 himself against the claim of a third person ; nor, if by 
 his unskilfulness he is himself injured, can he claim 
 damages from his master upon an allegation that his 
 own negligence was, in point of law, the negligence of 
 his master. The grounds for these distinctions are so 
 obvious as to need no illustrations. The difficulty is 
 as to the principle applicable to the case of several ser- 
 vants employed by the same master, and injury result- 
 ing to one of them from the negligence of another. In 
 such a case, however, we are of opinion that the master 
 is not, in general, responsible, when he has selected 
 persons of competent care and skill. Put the case of a 
 master employing A. and B., two of his servants, to 
 drive his cattle to market. It is admitted that, if by 
 the unskilfulness of A., a stranger is injured, the master 
 is responsible. Not so, if A., by his unskilfulness, 
 hurts himself; he cannot treat that as the want of skill
 
 fellow-seevant's negligence. 353 
 
 of his master. Suppose then, that by the unskilfulness 
 of A., B., the other servant, is injured while they are 
 jointly engaged in the same service, there we think B. 
 has no claim against the master. They are both en- 
 gaged in a common service, the duties of which impose 
 a certain risk on each of them ; and, in case of negli- 
 gence on the part of the other, the party injured knows 
 that the negligence is that of his fellow-servant, and 
 not of his master. He knew, when he engaged in the 
 service, that he was exposed to the risk of injury, not 
 only from his own want of skill or care, but also from 
 the want of it on the part of his fellow-servant ; and he 
 must be supposed to have contracted on the terms, that 
 as between himself and his master, he would run this 
 risk." In Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 1 where it was 
 held that a mine-owner was not liable to a miner in his 
 service for injuries resulting from the negligence of 
 another servant, whose duty it was to operate the 
 engine, by whose power the miners were brought up 
 from the pit, Lord Cranworth said : " when the work- 
 man contracts to do work of any particular sort, he 
 knows, or ought to know, to what risks he is exposing 
 himself; he knows, if such be the nature of the risk, 
 that want of care on the part of a fellow-servant may 
 be injurious or fatal to him, and that against such want 
 of care his employer cannot by possibility protect him. 
 If such want of care should occur, and evil is the result, 
 he cannot say that he does not know whether the master 
 or the servant was to blame. He knows that the blame 
 was wholly that of the servant He cannot say the 
 master need not have engaged in the work at all, for lie 
 was a party to its being undertaken. Principle, there- 
 fore, seems to me opposed to the doctrine that the 
 responsibility of the master for the ill consequences of his 
 
 1 3 Macq. II. L. 282. 
 
 23
 
 354 fellow-servant's negligence. 
 
 servant's carelessness, is applicable to the demand made 
 by a fellow-workman in respect of evil resulting from the 
 carelessness of a fellow-workman when engaged in a com- 
 mon work." In Wilson v. Merry, 1 where a mine-owner 
 was held not to be liable for the death of a servant caused 
 by the negligence of a fellow-servant in erecting a scaf- 
 fold which obstructed the circulation of air in the mine, 
 Lord Chancellor Cairns, after quoting from Lord Cran- 
 worth's judgment in Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, said : 
 " I would only add to this statement of the law, that I 
 do not think the liability or non-liability of the master 
 to his workmen can depend upon the question whether 
 the author of the accident is not or is, in any technical 
 sense, the fellow- workman or collaborates of the suf- 
 ferer. In the majority of cases in which accidents have 
 occurred, the negligence has, no doubt, been the negli- 
 gence of a fellow-workman ; but the case of the fellow- 
 workman appears to me to be an example of the rule, 
 and not the rule itself; the rule, as I think, must stand 
 upon higher and broader grounds. As is said by a 
 distinguished jurist : Exempla non restringunt regular//, 
 sed loquuntur de casibus crebrioribus. 2 The master is 
 not, and cannot be, liable to his servant unless there be 
 negligence on the part of the master, in that in which 
 he, the master, has contracted or undertaken with his 
 servant to do. The master has not contracted or under- 
 taken to execute, in person, the work connected with 
 his business. The result of an obligation on the master 
 personally to execute the work connected with his 
 business, in place of being beneficial, might be disas- 
 trous, to his servants, for the master might be incompe- 
 tent personally to perform his work. At all events, a 
 servant may choose for himself between serving a 
 master who does, and a master who does not, attend in 
 
 1 L.' E. 1 S. C. & D. 326. J Donellus de Jure Civ. L. 9, c. 2, n.
 
 fellow-servant's negligence. 3-55 
 
 person to his business. But what the master is, in my 
 opinion, bound to his servant to do, in the event of his 
 not personally superintending and directing the work, 
 is to select proper and competent persons to do so, and 
 to furnish them with adequate materials and resources 
 for the work. When he has done this he has, in my 
 opinion, done all that he is bound to do. And if the 
 persons selected are guilty of negligence, this is not the 
 negligence of the master." In Randall v. B. & O. R. 
 R., 1 the rule is distinctly recognized by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. There are, however, some 
 cases in which the doctrine is denied ; 2 and in L. & N. 
 Ry. v. Collins, 3 the railway was held liable for injuries 
 caused to a labourer by the negligence of an engine- 
 driver in putting the engine in motion, while the 
 labourer was, as the engine-driver knew, engaged in 
 making some repairs under the engine, the ground of 
 decision being that the doctrine of agency rendered the 
 corporation liable for the negligence of its servants 
 causing injury to other servants as well as to strangers. 
 The unsoundness of this reasoning has been sufficiently 
 shown by the quotations which have been made from 
 the judgments in those cases which maintain the op- 
 posing view upon this question. 
 
 321. The general rule, therefore, is that servants take 
 the risk of the negligence of their fellow-servants and 
 the master, if he has not been negligent in the selection 
 or retention of the nesdiprent fellow-servant, is not im- 
 pliedly liable to indemnify them for any injury result- 
 ing from the negligence of that fellow-servant. 4 
 
 1 109 u. S. 478. 
 
 3 Chamberlain v. M. & M. R. R., 11 Wise. 238; L. & N. Ry. v. Collins, 2 
 Duvall 114; McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399, 8 Am. & Eng. K. B. Cm. L62 ; 
 Haynes v. E., T. V. & G. R. R., 3 Cold. (Tenn.) 222. 
 
 3 2 Duvall 114. 
 
 * Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. Ry., 5 Ex. 343; Wigmore v. Jay. 1.1. 864 ; Bar-
 
 ooG COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 The common object of railway service being that of fitting the line for 
 traffic, and of carrying on the traffic, all who are employed in the 
 accomplishment of that object, and whose negligence may be the 
 cause of injury to one another, are to be deemed jcllow-servants. 
 
 322. At one time in England some of the judges 
 manifested an inclination to restrict within narrow 
 limits the doctrine of the master's immunity from re- 
 sponsibility to a servant for injuries caused by the neg- 
 ligence of a fellow-servant ; thus, in Holmes v. Clarke, 1 
 Pollock, C. B., said : " it would be quite consistent with 
 the authorities if we were to hold that a footman might 
 recover against his master for injury arising from the 
 neglect of the coachman or groom, the services being 
 different," and in Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire, 2 
 Chelmsford, C, intimated thai a carpenter in the rail- 
 way service, engaged in repairing a railway carriage, 
 could not be considered a fellow-servant of the engine- 
 
 tonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 Macq. H. L. 266 ; Vose v. L. Y. Ry., 2 H. & N. 
 728; Wigget v. Fox, 11 Ex. 832; Waller v. S. E. Ry., 2 H. & C. 102; Hall 
 v. Johnson, 3 Id. 589; Searle v. Lindsay, 11 C. B. N. S. 429, 103 E. C. L. ; 
 Lovegrove v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 16 C. B. N. S. 669, 111 E. C. L. ; Farwell v. 
 B. & W. R. R., 4 Mete. 49 ; Hayes v. Western R. R., 3 Cush. 270 ; Murray v. 
 S. C. R. R., 1 McMullan 385 ; Russell v. H. R. R. R., 17 N. Y. 13 1 ; Lovell v. 
 Howell, 1 C. P. D. 161 ; Charles v. Taylor, 3 Id. 492 ; Ryan v. C. V. R. R., 
 23 Penna. St. 110; Frazier v. P. R. R., 38 Id. 104; Gilman v. E. R. R., 
 10 Allen 233 ; Hall v. Johnson, 34 L. J. Ex. 222 ; Morgan v. V. of N. Ry., 
 L. R. 1 Q. B. 149 ; Gillshannon r. S. B. R. R., 10 Cush. 228 ; Coon v. S. R. R., 
 5 N.Y. 492; Boldt v. N. Y. C. R. R., 18 Id. 432; Wright v. N. Y. C. R. R., 25 
 Id. 562; Honor v. Albrighton, 93 Penna. St. 475; Armour v. Hahn, 111 U. S. 
 313; Caldwell v. Brown, 53 Penna. St. 453 ; Allen v. New Gas Co., 1 Ex. 
 D. 251 ; Hand v. V. & C. R. R-, 32 Vt. 473; Randall v. B. & O. R. R., 109 
 U. S. 478, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243; Doughty v. L. D. Co., 76 Me. 143; 
 K. P. Ry. v. Salmon, 11 Kans. 83 ; Brabbitts v. C & N. W. Ry., 38 Wise. 289 ; 
 M. C. R. R. v. Dolan, 32 Mich 510 ; Robinson v. H. & T. C. Ry., 46 Tex. 540 ; 
 T. W. & W. Ry. v. Durkin, 76 111. 395 ; Day v. T. C. S. & D. Ry., 42 Mich. 
 523, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 126; Whaalen v. M. R. & L. E. R. R., 8 Ohio 
 St. 249 ; Hunt v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 Iowa 363 ; Carle v. B. & P. C. R. R., 43 
 Me. 269; P., F. W. & C. R. R. v. Devinney, 7 Ohio St. 197. 
 
 1 6 II. & N. 357 ' 3 Macq. II. L. 311.
 
 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 357 
 
 driver and the switch-tender, 1 and he said: 2 "where 
 servants are engaged in different departments of duty, 
 an injury committed by one servant upon the other by 
 carelessness or negligence in the course of his peculiar 
 work is not within the exception, and the master's lia- 
 bility attaches in that case in the same manner as if 
 the servant stood in no relation to him," and in the 
 same case, 3 Lord Brougham said that fellow-servants 
 are "men in the same common employment and engaged 
 in the same common work under that common employ- 
 ment." Later cases in England have, however, given 
 a much wider range to the scope of a common employ- 
 ment. In Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. By., 4 a guard, or 
 train hand, was held to be a fellow-servant with not 
 only the engine-driver, guards, and hands on his train, 
 but also with the servants performing the like duties 
 on a train which came into collision with his train. 
 Alderson, B., in delivering judgment for the defendant, 
 said on this point : " the principle is, that a servant, 
 when he engages to serve a master, undertakes, as be- 
 tween him and his master, to run all the ordinary risks 
 of the service, and this includes the risk of negligence 
 on the part of a fellow-servant, whenever he is acting 
 in discharge of his duty as servant of him who is the 
 common master of both. The death of Hutchinson 
 appears on the pleadings to have happened while he 
 was acting in the discharge of his duties to the defend- 
 ant as his master, and to have been the result of care- 
 lessness on the part of one or more other servant or 
 servants of the same master while engaged in their 
 service; and whether the death resulted from the mis- 
 management of the one train, or of the other, or of 
 both, does not affect the principle ; in any case, it arose 
 
 1 See McNaughton v. 0. Ky., 19 Court of Sess. < 'a. '-'71. 
 >p, 307. "P. 313. 4 6 Exch. 343.
 
 C58 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 from carelessness or want of skill, the risk of which 
 the deceased had, as between himself and the defendant, 
 agreed to run." So in Waller v. S. E. By., 1 wherein it 
 was held that a guard on a train, or train hand, was a 
 fellow-servant with the "gauger of plate layers," or 
 foreman of track repairs, by whose negligence the in- 
 jury was occasioned, Pollock, C. B., said : " I think 
 that the superintending the trains on their journey, and 
 the taking care that the rails on which the carriages 
 run are firmly and securely fastened and bolted con- 
 stitute one common object, viz. : that the passengers 
 shall be conveyed in carriages which are safe, and on 
 rails which are free from danger. Where, indeed, two 
 trains belonging to the same company are travelling on 
 different lines of rail which, at a certain point, intersect 
 each other or join a principal line, and, in consequence 
 of the negligence of the driver of one of the trains, a 
 collision ensues, by which the driver of the other train 
 is injured, I own there seems to me less of what may 
 be called an employment in one common object. No 
 doubt the common object of the two servants is the 
 driving their respective trains to their place of destina- 
 tion ; but each of them has in particular a different 
 object, one of them has one train under his control, the 
 other another train. But in this case the common object 
 of both servants was the safe conveyance of the pas- 
 sengers in that particular train, it being the duty of the 
 one to superintend the carriages of the other, and to 
 take care that the rails were in such a condition that 
 the journey might be safely performed. Viewing this 
 case with reference to the observation of Lord Cran- 
 worth in Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Beid, that when a 
 workman contracts to do work of any particular sort, 
 
 1 2 H. & c. 102.
 
 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 359 
 
 lie knows or ought to know to what risks he is exposing 
 himself, there can be no doubt that the guard of a rail- 
 way train must anticipate, among other probable sources 
 of danger on the journey, the neglect of a servant to 
 oil the wheels of the carriages, the neglect of another 
 to adjust the points, the neglect of another to take care 
 that the rails are safely and securely fastened and 
 bolted." In Farwell v. B. & W. R. R., 1 Shaw, C. J., 
 said : " it was strongly pressed in the argument, that 
 although this might be so where two or more ser- 
 vants are employed in the same department of duty, 
 where each can exert some influence over the conduct 
 of the other, and thus to some extent provide for 
 his own security, yet that it could not apply where 
 two or more are employed in different departments 
 of duty at a distance from each other, and where one 
 can in no degree control or influence the conduct of 
 another. But we think this is founded upon a sup- 
 posed distinction, on which it would be extremely 
 difficult to establish a practical rule. When the 
 object to be accomplished is one and the same, when 
 the employers are the same, and the several persons 
 employed derive their authority and their compensation 
 from the same source, it would be extremely difficult to 
 distinguish what constitutes one department and what a 
 distinct department of duty. It would vary with the 
 circumstances, of every case. If it were made to depend 
 upon the nearness or distance of the persons from each 
 other, the question would immediately arise, how Dear 
 or how distant must they be to be in the same or different 
 departments. * * * Besides, it appears to us, that the 
 argument rests upon an assumed principle of responsi- 
 bility which does not exist. The master, in the case 
 supposed, is not exempt from liability, because the Ber-
 
 360 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 vant has better means of providing for his safety when 
 he is employed in immediate connection with those from 
 whose negligence he might suffer ; but because the im- 
 plied contract of the master does not extend to indem- 
 nify the servant against the negligence of any one but 
 himself ; and he is not liable in tort, as for the negli- 
 gence of his servant, because the person suffering does 
 not stand towards him in the relation of a servant, but 
 is one whose rights are regulated by contract express or 
 implied. The exemption of the master, therefore, from 
 liability for the negligence of a fellow-servant does not 
 depend exclusively upon the consideration that the 
 servant has better means to provide for his own safety, 
 but upon other grounds. Hence the separation of the 
 employment into different departments cannot create 
 that liability when it does not arise from express or 
 implied contract, or from a responsibility created by 
 law to third persons and strangers for the negligence 
 of a servant." In Morgan v. V. of N. Ky., 1 the plain- 
 tiff, a carpenter in the railway service, while working 
 on a scaffolding in the railway yard, was thrown down 
 and injured by the negligence of some porters in the 
 railway service in carelessly shifting an engine on a 
 turn-table. The judge at the trial having nonsuited the 
 plaintiff, the Q. B. discharged a rule to enter the ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff. Blackburn, J., after referring to 
 the general rule of a master's exemption from liability 
 for injuries done to a servant by the negligence of a 
 fellow-servant, said : " I quite agree that it is necessary 
 that the employment must be common in this sense, 
 that the safety of the one servant must in the ordinary 
 and natural course of things depend on the care and 
 skill of the others. This includes almost every, if not 
 
 1 5 B. & S. 570, 117 E. C. L., L. R. 1 Q. B. 149.
 
 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 3G1 
 
 every, case in which the servants are employed to do 
 joint work, but I do not think it is limited to such 
 cases. There are many cases where the immediate 
 object on which the one servant is employed is very 
 dissimilar from that on which the other is employed, 
 and yet the risk of injury from the negligence of the 
 one is so much a natural and necessary consequence of 
 the employment which the other accepts, that it must 
 be included in the risks which are to be considered in 
 his wages. I think that, whenever the employment is 
 such as necessarily to bring the person accepting it into 
 contact with the traffic of the line of railway, risk of 
 injury from the carelessness of those managing that 
 traffic is one of the risks necessarily and naturally in- 
 cident to such an employment, and within the rule." 
 The Queen's Bench having entered judgment against 
 the plaintiff, the Exchequer Chamber affirmed that 
 judgment, Erie, C. J., saying: "the plaintiff and the 
 porters were engaged in one common employment, and 
 were doing work for the common object of their mas- 
 ters, viz., fitting the line for the traffic ;" and Pollock, 
 C. B., adding : " it appears to me that Ave should be 
 letting in a flood of litigation were we to decide the 
 present case in favour of the plaintiff. For, if a car- 
 penter's employment is to be distinguished from that 
 of the porters employed by the same company, it will 
 be sought to split up the employes in every large estab- 
 lishment into different departments of service, although 
 the common object of their employment, however dif- 
 ferent, is but the furtherance of the business of the 
 master; yet it might be said with truth that no two 
 had a common immediate object. This shows that we 
 must not over-refine, but look at the common objecl and 
 not at the common immediate object." In Slater v.
 
 3G2 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 Jewett, 1 wherein the facts were identical with those in 
 C, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Ross, 2 with the exception that 
 the person injured was a fireman, and the persons whose 
 negligence caused the injury were a telegraph operator 
 and the conductor of the train which came into collision 
 with that on which the injured fireman was serving. 
 Judgment was entered for the defendant, and the 
 grounds of the judgment, as stated by Folger, C. J., 
 are that "each of these agents" [the telegraph operator 
 and the conductor], "in doing their ordinary work for 
 the defendant, were fellow-servants of the intestate in 
 the same common employment. The conductor was 
 engaged in the particular work in which the intestate 
 was, that of moving trains. The telegrapher was en- 
 gaged in a work closely connected therewith, that of 
 receiving and giving information of the whereabouts 
 of trains, and communicating orders to those controlling 
 them for stopping or going on. This was a branch of 
 the general business of the defendant essential to the 
 smooth and successful movement of the whole, that 
 branch of it in which the intestate was engaged as much 
 as any other. * * * It cannot be contended that there 
 was anything required of the conductor that raised him 
 out of his relation to the intestate of a fellow-servant. 
 The act required of the conductor at the particular time 
 was to receive an order from an authorized source of 
 command, and in a prescribed mode to acknowledge the 
 receipt of it, and then to follow the direction. This 
 was service merely. It is contended that the duty of 
 the telegrapher at the time and the act required of him 
 were those that the defendant was bound to perform as 
 master, and that the negligent performance by the 
 operator was the negligence of the master. The argii- 
 
 1 85 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. & Eng. U. K. Cas. 515. a 112 U. S. 377.
 
 TEST OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 363 
 
 ment to sustain this position consists, in part, in an 
 effort to show that the duties of the operator were in 
 no respect like to those of the intestate. They were 
 not like, but they tended to the same end, that of the 
 speedy, efficient, and successful carriage of passengers 
 and freight over the railway. There are many kinds 
 of servants of a great railway company. Their duties 
 are not in all cases the same, nor always alike, yet they 
 are all done to bring one result, and it is their conjoint, 
 simultaneous, and harmonious performance that does 
 effect the finality, sought through the whole complex 
 organism. If it be so that this operator sometimes re- 
 ceived and sent messages that had naught to do there- 
 with, still, on this occasion, the act required of him had 
 direct connection with the acts of those engaged in 
 moving the two trains. The position, that the operator 
 was hired and discharged by one superior agent and 
 the intestate by another, and that, therefore, they were 
 not fellow-servants, is not sound. The general authority 
 to hire and to turn away was in the defendant. It did 
 radiate from him through different chiefs of department 
 in his general work. His, however, was the ultimate 
 power. The heads of bureaus were not independent 
 contractors doing a branch of his work on their own 
 responsibility, and free from his interference with their 
 subordinates. He had the right to step into their 
 spheres of duty, and act for himself." 1 
 
 323. It, therefore, may be laid down as the result of 
 the authorities, that the common object of railway ser- 
 vice being that of fitting the line for traffic, and of carry- 
 ing on the traffic, all servants who are working for the 
 
 1 See also Holden v. F. R. R., 129 Mass. 268; Farwcll v. B. & W. R. R, i 
 Mete. 49; Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cm. 615; 
 Waller v. S. E. Ry., 2 H. & 0. 102; N. O., J. & N. K. R. v. Hughe 19 Mitt. 
 258 ; Valtez v. O. & M. Ry., 85 111. 500 ; M. & M. R. R. v. Smith, 69 Ala. 2 US : 
 McGowan v. St. L. & I. M. R. R-, 61 Mo. 528.
 
 364 TEST OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 accomplishment of that common object are fellow- 
 servants within the rule. A very simple practical test 
 is, as suggested in Valtez v. O. & M. Ry., 1 to hold those 
 to be fellow-servants whose negligence is likely to inflict 
 injury on one another. Under this rule railway servants 
 take the risk of injury from the negligence of their 
 fellow-servants, while those fellow-servants are tempo- 
 rarily discharging the duties of stations other than their 
 regular ones. This rule prevents a recovery by train 
 hands if injured by the negligence of a fireman while 
 acting as an engine-driver, 2 or of a conductor while act- 
 ing as an engine-driver. 3 It is held in some Illinois 
 cases that the test of the existence of the relation of 
 fellow-servants is, their habitual consociation and direct 
 co-operation in the performance of a common work, so 
 that they may influence each other to the exercise of 
 care, and that the existence of such a relation in any 
 case is a question of fact for the jury ; 4 thus, in I. & St. 
 L. Ey. v. Morganstern, 5 where the jury found that the 
 plaintiff's decedent, an inspector of rolling stock in the 
 defendant's service, had been killed by the negligence 
 of the defendant's baggage-master, and also that the 
 deceased and the baggage-master were hot fellow- 
 servants, judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict was 
 affirmed in error, Craig, J., saying: " the definition of 
 fellow-servant may be a question of law, but it is always 
 a question of fact to be determined from the evidence 
 
 1 85 111. 500. 
 
 2 Greenwald v. M., H. & O. E. E., 49 Mich. 197, 7 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 133. 
 
 3 Eodraan v. M. C. Ey., 55 Mich. 57, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 521. 
 
 * C. & N. W. Ey. v. Miranda, 108 111. 576, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 564; 
 W. Ey. v. Elliott, 98 111. 4S1, 4 Am. & Eng. E. E, Cas. 651 ; Penn. Co. v. Conlan, 
 101 111. 93, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 243 ; C. & A. E. E. v. Bonifield, 104 HI. 
 223, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 493 ; I. & St. L. Ey. v. Morganstern, 106 ILL 
 216, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 228. 
 
 4 106 111. 216, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 228.
 
 THE ILLINOIS RULE. 365 
 
 whether a given case falls within that definition." But 
 in the later case of Abend v. T. H. & I. Ry., 1 the rule 
 as generally held is asserted. In this case a foreman 
 of wreckers, while being carried on a wrecking train to 
 the scene of a wreck, voluntarily seated himself in the 
 engine cab and was killed in a collision between that 
 train and another train, and Mulkey, J., said: "the 
 evidence shows that a wrecking force is always made 
 up in the hurry of the moment out of the employes and 
 servants of the company who happen to be within con- 
 venient reach, without regard to the particular line of 
 service in which they are employed. The removing of 
 obstructions from the tracks in case of a collision is, as 
 shown by the proofs in this case, a distinct branch of 
 service, to which all the labouring force of the company 
 are liable to be called without any reference to their 
 ordinary calling or duties, and when a force thus made 
 up goes aboard the wrecking train and starts to the 
 scene of disaster, they are all, including conductor, en- 
 gineer, foreman and brakeman, put as much in a com- 
 mon branch of service while on the way as they are 
 after their arrival and the work of clearing the track 
 has commenced. It is an error to suppose that a force 
 of men cannot be engaged in a common cause unless all 
 are continuously working at the same time, and engaged 
 in doing precisely the same kind of work. It is suffi- 
 cient if all are actually employed by the same master, 
 and that the work of each, whatever it may be, has for 
 its immediate object a common end or purpose, sought 
 to be accomplished by the united effort of all." 
 
 324. In the application of the rule of a common em- 
 ployment to the different departments and grades of 
 railway service, the cases are very numerous, and it 
 must be added, far from consistent. It has been held 
 
 1 111 111. 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. G'4.
 
 366 CASES OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 that the following classes of servants are fellow-servants, 
 the injured servant being named first, and the servant 
 whose negligence has caused the injury being named 
 last. Engine-driver and switch-tender or pointsman; 1 
 engine-driver and road-master, acting as switch-tender 
 or pointsman; 2 engine-driver and train dispatcher; 3 
 engine-driver and station agent acting as yard master; 4 
 engine-driver and yard master; 5 engine-driver and 
 master mechanic in repair shop ; 6 fireman, or stoker, and 
 his engine-driver; 7 fireman, or stoker, and engine- 
 driver of another engine; 8 fireman, or stoker, and con- 
 ductor of another train, and telegraph operator ; 9 fire- 
 man, or stoker, and switch -tender or pointsman ; 10 fireman, 
 or stoker, and master mechanic in repair shop; 11 train 
 hands, or guards, and conductor acting as engine- 
 driver; 12 train hands, or guards, and train hands, or 
 guards, of the same train ; 13 train hands, or guards, and 
 foreman of labourers on line; 14 train hands, or guards, 
 and conductor of train; 15 train hands, or guards, and 
 
 1 Farwell v. B. & W. K. K., 4 Mete. 49. 
 
 I Walker v. B. & M. E. E., Miller v. Same, 128 Mass. 8, 1 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 141. 
 
 3 C, St. L. & N. O. Ey. v. Doyle, GO Miss. 977, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 171 ; Blessing v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ey., 77 Mo. 410, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 298. 
 
 * Brown v. M. & St. L. Ey., 31 Minn. 553, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 333. 
 
 5 E. T. V. & G. E. E. v. Gurley, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 46, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 568. 
 
 6 Hard v. C. Ey., 32 Vt. 473. 
 
 7 Murray v. S. C. E. E., 1 McMullan 385 ; Henry v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., 49 
 Mich. 495, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas- 110. 
 
 8 L. & N. E. E. v. Eobinson, 4 Bush (Ky.) 507. 
 
 9 Slater v. Jewett, 85 N. Y. 61, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 515. 
 
 10 King v. B. & W. E. E., 9 Cush. 112. 
 
 II C. & I. C. E. E. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174. 
 
 12 Eodman v. M. C. E. E., 55 Mich. 57, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 521. 
 
 13 Hutchinson v. Y., N. & B. Ey., 5 Exch. 343. 
 
 11 Waller v. S. E. Ey., 2 H. & C, 102. 
 
 15 Frazier v. P. E. E., 38 Penna. St. 104 ; Cassidy v. M. C. E. E., 76 Me. 488, 
 17 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 519 ; Heine v. C. & N. W. Ey., 58 Wise. 528 ; Pease 
 v. Same, 61 Wise. 163, 17 Am. & Eng. E.E. Cas. 527.
 
 CASES OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 367 
 
 engine-driver of another train j 1 train hands, or guards, 
 and fireman, or stoker, of the engine of their train; 2 
 train hands, or guards, and engine-driver of their train; 3 
 train hands, or guards, and train hands, or guards, of 
 another train; 4 train hands, or guards, and labourers 
 on line; 5 train hands, or guards, and inspector of car 
 repairs ; 6 train hands, or guards, and fireman, or stoker; 7 
 train hands, or guards, and train dispatcher; 8 train 
 hands, or guards, and yard master; 9 train hands, or 
 guards, and switch-tender; 10 train hands, or guards, and 
 yardmen who make up trains; 11 conductor and baggage- 
 master of train ; 12 switch-tender, or pointsman, and in- 
 spector of car repairs ; 13 labourers and foreman of track 
 layers; 14 labourers and engine-driver ; 15 labourers and 
 
 1 Kandall v. B. & O. K. R, 109 U. S. 478, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243. 
 
 2 Greenwald v. M. H. & O. R. R., 49 Mich. 197, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 133. 
 
 8 P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Ranney, 37 Ohio St. 665, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 533 ; P., F. W. & C. Ry. v. Lewis, 33 Id. 196 ; H. & T. C. R. R. v. Willie, 53 
 Tex. 318 ; Summerhays v. K. P. Ry., 2 Colo. 484 ; N., C. & St. L. Ry. v 
 Wheless, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 74; 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 633, 15 Id. 315 ; Smith 
 v. M. & L. R. R, 18 Fed. Rep. 304 ; I. C. R. R. v. Keen, 72 111. 512 ; Sherman 
 v. R. & S. R. R., 17 N. Y. 153 ; Wilson v. M. & P. Ry., IS Ind. 226. 
 
 * Bull v. M. & M. Ry., 67 Ala. 206. 
 
 5 Holden v. F. R. R., 129 Mass. 268, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 94. 
 
 6 Smith v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 140 ; C. & X. R 
 R. v. Webb, 12 Ohio St. 475; L. M. R. R. v. Fitzpatrick, 42 Ohio St. 318, 17 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 578; Mackin v. B. & A. R. R., 135 Mass. 201, 1", Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 196 ; N., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Foster, Tenn. , 11 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 180. 
 
 T Greenwald v. M., H. & O. R. R., 49 Mich. 197, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 133. 
 
 8 Robertson v. T. H. & I. R. R., 78 Ind. 77, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 175. 
 
 9 Rains v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 71 Mo. 164. 
 
 10 Slattery v. T. & W. Ry., 23 Ind. 81. 
 
 11 Whitman v. W. & M. Ry., 58 Wise. 408, 12 Am. & En^. R. R. Cas. 214. 
 " C. C. R. R. v. Martin, 7 Colo., 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. I as. 592. 
 
 " Gibson v. N. C. Ry., 22 Hun 289. 
 
 " Lovegrove v. L , B. & S. C. Ry., 16 C. B. N. S. 669, 111 E. C. L. 
 
 15 Ryan v. C. V. R. R., 23 Penna. St., 384 ; Kumler v. .1. I!. B., 33 Ohio St. 
 150; Fitzpatrick v. N. A. & S. R. R., 7 Ind. 436; O. & M. Ry. v. Tindall, r. 
 Ind. 366; C. & A. R. R. r. Keefe, 47 111. 108; Capper v. L. E. & St. L. R. R.,
 
 3G8 CASES OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 fireman, or stoker, of engine; 1 labourers ant] road 
 master; 2 labourer and section foreman ; 3 labourer and 
 engine-driver of steam shovel; 4 assistant yard master 
 and yard master; 5 yard master and general traffic 
 manager of the line; 6 yard hand and foreman of yard 
 hands; 7 night watchmen of tracks in yard and yard 
 hands ; 8 foreman of a wrecking crew and engine-drivers 
 of colliding trains; 9 conductor of a construction train and 
 train hands of a passenger train on which he was jour- 
 neying to join his train ; J0 carpenters, or car repairers, 
 and hands in yard employed in shifting trains; 11 car- 
 penters, or car repairers, and train hands ; 12 yard master 
 
 103 Ind. 305, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 525 ; IT. & T. C. Ry. v. Rider, 62 Tex. 
 267, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 583, note ; Rohrback v. P. R. R., 43 Mo. 187 ; 
 P. R. R. v. Wachter, 60 Md. 395, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 187 ; Weger v. P. 
 R. R., 55 Penna. St. 460 ; Henry v. S. I. R. R , 81 N. Y. 373, 2 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 60 ; Gormley v. O. & M. Ry., 72 Ind. 31, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 581 ; Collins v. St. P. & S. C. R. R., 30 Minn. 31, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 150; Tunney v. M. Ry., L. R. 1 C. P. 201 ; Blake v. M. C. R. R-, 70 Me. 60; 
 I. C. R. R. v. Cox, 21 111. 20; St. L. & S. E. Ry. v. Britz, 72 Id. 256 ; Coon r. 
 S. & U. R. R., 5 N. Y. 492 ; Foster v. M. C. R. R., 14 Minn. 360 ; Dallas v. G., C. 
 & S. F. R. R., 61 Tex. 196, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 575 ; St. L., I. M. & 
 S. R. R. v. Shackelford, 42 Ark. 417; Howland v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 54 
 Wise. 226, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 578; Copper v. L. E. & St. L. Ry., 
 Ind. , 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 277. 
 
 1 Whaalen v. M., R. & L. E. Ry., 8 Ohio St. 249. 
 
 I Brown v. W. & St: P. R. R., 27 Minn. 162. 
 
 s Brick v. R., N. Y. & P. R. R., 98 N. Y. 212 ; Barringer v. D. & H. C. Co., 
 19 Hun 216 ; Hoke v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 11 Mo. App. 575 ; Willis v. O. 
 Rv. & N. Co., 11 Oregon 257, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 539 ; Peschel v. C, M. 
 * St. P. Ry., 62 Wise. 338, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 545. 
 
 4 Thompson v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 239. 
 
 6 McCosker v. L. I. R. R., 84 N. Y. 77, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 567. 
 
 • Conway v. B. & N. C. Ry., 9 Irish C L. 498. 
 
 ' Fraker v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 32 Minn. 54, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 256. 
 
 8 C. & E. R. R. v. Geary, 110 111. 383, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 606. 
 
 9 Abend v. T. II. & I. Ry., Ill 111. 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R.Cas. 614. 
 
 10 Manville v. C. <% T. R. R., 11 Ohio St. 417. 
 
 II Morgan v. V. of N. Ry., L. R. 1 Q. B. 149 ; Oilman v. E. R. R., 10 Allen 
 233, 13 Id. 433, Valtez v. 6. & M. Ry., 85 111. 500 ; C. A A. R. R. v. Murphy, 
 53 111. 336. 
 
 12 Gilshannon v. C. B R. R., 10 Cush. 228 ; Seaver v. B. & M. R. R., 14 Gray 
 466 ; Besel v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 70 N. Y. 171.
 
 CASES NOT OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 3G9 
 
 and train bands; 1 machinist in repair shop and boiler 
 makers in same shop ; 2 yard bands and driver of switch- 
 ing engine; 3 surveying engineer and conductor of train 
 on which he was carried to his place of work; 4 yard 
 hands and their foreman. 5 
 
 325. It has been held that the following classes of 
 servants are not fellow-servants, the injured servant 
 being named first and the servant whose negligence 
 caused the injury being named last : engine-driver and 
 conductor, 6 train hands, including engine-driver and 
 fireman, and servants charged with the duty of con- 
 structing and maintaining in repair line, rolling stock, 
 and appliances; 7 train hands and inspector of car re- 
 pairs, 8 train hands, or guards, and labourers on line ; 9 
 
 1 Besel v. N. Y. C & H. R. E. R., 70 N. Y. 171 ; Valtez v. O. & M. Ry., 85 
 111. 500. 
 1 Murphy v. B. & A. E. R, 88 N. Y. 146, 8 Am. & Eng. E.E. Cas. 510. 
 
 * Fowler v. C. & N. W. Ey., 61 Wise. 159, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 536. 
 
 * Eoss v. N. Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 74 N. Y. 617. 
 
 6 Fraker v. St. P, M. & M. Ey., 32 Minn. 54, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 256. 
 
 6 L. M. E. R. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio 415 ; Chamberlin v. M. & M. E. E., 11 
 Wise. 238 ; C, M. & St. P. Ey. v. Eoss, 112 U. S. 376. 
 
 T A., T. & S. F. E. P v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 243, 
 31 Kans. 197, 15 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 312 ; II. & T. C. Ky. t>. Marcelles, 59 
 Tex. 334, 12 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 231 ; Gilmore v. N. P. Ey., 18 Fed. Rep. 
 866, 15 Am. & Eng. E. R Cas. 304 ; Ford v. F. E. E., 1 10 Mass. 241 ; Hough 
 v. T. & P. Ey., 100 U. S. 213 ; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46 ; P. & N. Y. C. 
 E. E. v. Leslie, 16 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 321 ; Lawless v. C. E. E. 
 E., 136 Mass. 1, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 96; T. W. & W. By. v. [ngraham, 
 
 77 111. 309 ; Davis v. C. V. E. E., 55 Vt. 84, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 173 ; 
 Eyan v. C. & N. W. Ey., 60 111. 171. 
 
 8 Cooper v. P., C. & St. L. E. E., 24 W. Va. 37, 21 Am. A Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 564 note; Schultz v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 48 Wise. 375; M. P. Ky. »•. Condon, 
 
 78 Mo. 567, 17 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 583; Long v. P. Ky., 65 M,,. 226 ; K iug 
 v. M. Ey., 14 Fed. Eep. 277, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 119 ; Brann v. C, E. I. 
 & P. Ey., 53 Iowa 595; Tierney v. M. & St. L. Ey., 33 Minn. 311, 21 Am. & 
 Eng. R R. Cas. 545. 
 
 * Lewis v. St. L. & 1. M. R. R., 59 Mo. 495; Hall v. M. P. Ky., 74 Id. 298, 
 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 106 ; Moon v. R. & A. R. R., 78 Va. 745, 17 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 531. 
 
 24
 
 370 VOLUNTEER SERVANTS. 
 
 train hands, or guards, and the conductor of their train ; * 
 train hands, or guards, and labourers on the line ; 2 sec- 
 tion foreman and engine-driver of train, 3 helper in ma- 
 chine shop and the workman whom he is employed to 
 help, 4 car repairer and his foreman, 5 labourer and train 
 dispatcher, 6 labourer and engine-driver, 7 labourer and 
 foreman acting as conductor of a construction train, 8 
 labourer and section boss, 9 and labourer and fireman, 
 or stoker. 10 
 
 326. The rule of law, that a master is not liable to a 
 servant for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow- 
 servant in the course of their common employment, 
 prevents a recovery by a volunteer injured while assist- 
 ing the servant in his work, for the obvious reason that 
 a stranger cannot, by volunteering his services and 
 thereby exposing himself to danger, acquire any greater 
 rights, nor impose any greater duty on the master, than 
 would have been acquired by the one, or imposed upon 
 the other, il the stranger had been hired as a servant. 11 
 
 1 C, C. & C. Ry. v. Keary, 3 Ohio St. 201 ; Cowles v. R. & D. R. R., 84 N. 
 C. 309, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 90 ; Moon v. R. & A. R. R., 78 Va. 745, 17 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 531. 
 
 2 Carroll v. N. & C. R. R., 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 347. 
 
 3 Dick v. I. C. & L. R. R., 38 Ohio St. 389, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 101. 
 * TJ. P. R. R. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553. 
 
 5 L, S. & M. S. Ry. v. Lavalley, 36 Ohio St. 221, 5 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 549 ; H. & St. J. R. R. v. Fox, 31 Kans. 587, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 325. 
 
 6 McKune v. C. S. R. R., Cal, , 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589, 21 Id. 
 539. 
 
 ' L. & N. R. R. v. Collins, 2 Duvall 114 ; Dobbins v. R. & D. R. R., 81 N. 
 C. 446 ; P., F. W. &. C. Ky. v. Powers, 74 111. 341 ; Dick v. I. C. & L. R. R., 38 
 Ohio St. 389, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. 101. 
 
 8 C, St. P., M. & O. R. R. v. Lundstrom, 16 Neb. 254, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 528. 
 
 9 L. & N. R. R. v. Bowler, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 866. 
 
 10 C. & N. Vi. Ry. v. Moranda, 93 111. 302. 
 
 11 Degg v. M. Ry., 1 H. & N. 773 ; Potter v. Faulkner, 1B.&S. 800, 101 E- 
 C. L. ; Everhart v. T. H. & I. R. R., 78 Ind. 292, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 599; Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Penna. St. 210 ; Sherman v. II. & St. J. R. R., 72 
 Mo. 62, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589 ; Osborne v. K. & L. R. R., 68 Me. 49 ; 
 Jewell v. G. T. Ry., 53 N. H. 84.
 
 VOLUNTEER SERVANTS. 371 
 
 This rule has been held to bar recovery in the case of 
 "volunteers injured while assisting railway servants ifl 
 turning a turn-table, 1 in setting a brake on a moving car, 2 
 in watering an engine, 3 in adjusting the load on a freight 
 car in motion, 4 or in moving a crate of merchandise. 5 
 On the other hand, it has been held that the rule does 
 not bar recovery in the case of a passenger who, having 
 alighted from the car of a street railroad after it had 
 been derailed, and having assisted in putting it on the 
 track, was, while climbing over the front dasher, injured 
 by the negligent act of the driver in starting the horses ; 6 
 nor in the case of a passenger on a street car, who is in- 
 jured while engaged, at the request of the driver, in 
 assisting to shunt the car to a siding ; 7 but, as in the 
 two last cited cases, the plaintiffs were injured by reason 
 of their voluntary participation in the work of the ser- 
 vants of the railway, it would seem that the railway 
 ought not to have been held liable for their injuries. 
 The rule does not bar recovery by a passer-by, who, 
 at the request of a servant, pauses to give his advice as 
 to the work, but does not otherwise participate in its 
 prosecution ; 8 nor by a passenger who, having rendered 
 some assistance on a train to the railway servants, and, 
 having resumed his place as a passenger, is subsequently 
 injured by the negligence of a railway servant; 9 nor by 
 persons who are not volunteers, but who participate in 
 the work of the railway for some purpose of common 
 interest to themselves and the railway, as where con- 
 
 1 Degg v. M. Ry., 1 H. & N. 773. 
 
 « Everhart v. T. II. & I. R R., 7S Ind. 292, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 599. 
 
 3 Flower v. P. R. R., 69 Penna. St, '210. 
 
 ♦ Sherman v. H. & St. J. I!. B., 72 Mo. (12, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 589. 
 
 5 Jewell v. G. T. Ry., 55 N. H. 84. 
 
 8 P. P. Ry. v. Green, 56 Md. 84, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168. 
 
 7 Mel. R. R. v. Bolton, 43 Ohio St. 221, 21 Am. & Eng. K. B. Cas. 501. 
 
 8 Cleveland v. Speyer, 16 C. B. N. S. 399, 111 E. C. L. 
 
 9 C. V. R. R. v. Myers, 55 Penna. St. 2S8.
 
 372 EX-SERVANTS. 
 
 -signees assist in the reception of their freight ; l nor by 
 servants of another railway who have come upon the 
 line, or premises, of the defendant railway in the per- 
 formance of their duty to that other railway ; 2 nor does 
 the rule bar recovery in the case of a servant of a rail- 
 way for injuries caused by the negligence of the servants 
 of another railway in the exercise of running powers by 
 the latter railway over the line of the first-mentioned 
 railway ; 3 nor in the case of the servant of a connecting 
 steamboat line, who is similarly injured ; 4 nor does the 
 rule bar a recovery from the railway by a servaut for in- 
 juries caused to that servant's wife by the negligence of 
 a fellow-servant. 5 If the relation of service is termi- 
 nated, the ex-servant is not barred from recovering for 
 injuries caused by his late fellow-servants. 6 A servant 
 employed by the day, who is injured after he has fin- 
 ished his day's work, or at a time when he is not in the 
 service, is no longer a fellow-servant of another servant 
 by whose negligence he is injured, and can, therefore, 
 recover from the master for injuries so received. 7 
 
 1 Holmes v. N. E. By., L. E. 4 Ex. 254, 6 Id. 123 ; Wright v. L. & N. W. 
 By., L. B. 10 Q. B. 298, 1 Q. B.D. 252; Kelly v. Johnson, 128 Mass. 530. 
 
 2 Vose v. L. & Y. By., 2 H. & N. 728 ; Warburton v. S. W. By., L. B. 2 Ex. 
 30 ; Swainson v. N. E. By., 3 Ex. Div. 341 ; Graham v. N. E. By., 18 C. B. N. 
 S. 529, 114 E. C. L. ; C. B. B. v. Armstrong, 49 Penna. St. 186, 52 Id. 282 ; P., 
 W. & B.B. B. v. The State, to use of Bitzer, 58 Md. 372, 10 Am. & Eng. B. B. 
 Cas. 792 ; Merrill v. C. V. B. B., 54 Vt. 200; Snow v. II. B. B, 8 Allen 441 ; 
 Bee also Abraham v. Beynolds, 5 H. &, N. 142. 
 
 3 Smith v. N. Y. & II. E. E., 19 N. Y. 127. 
 * Carroll v. M. V. B. B., 13 Minn. 30. 
 
 5 Gannon v. H. B. B., 112 Mass. 234. 
 
 6 Packet Co. v. McCue, 17 Wall. 508. 
 
 / 7 Baird v. Pettit, 70 Penna. St. 477 ; B. & O. E. B. v. The State, to use of 
 Trainor, 33 Md. 542; Abell v. W. M. E. E., 63 Md. 433, 21 Am. & Eng. B. B. 
 Cas. 503.
 
 SERVANTS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 373 
 
 VIII. THE SERVANT'S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 It is contributory negligence in a servant to continue work with incom- 
 petent servants, or with an insufficient number of servants, or with 
 obviously defective machinery or appliances, or to carelessly expose 
 himself to danger in the conduct of his work; but when the servant 
 has complained to the proper officer of the defective apparatus, or of 
 the negligent fellow-servant, or of the inadequacy in the number of 
 servants, and he has been promised that the defect complained of 
 shall be remedied, the servant is not contributor ily negligent in 
 continuing work, provided, that the defect be not of such a character 
 as to render continuance in the work obviously and unavoidably 
 dangerous. 
 
 327. A servant cannot recover for injuries to which 
 his own negligence has contributed in voluntarily- 
 continuing to work, either with incompetent fellow- 
 servants; 1 or, with an insufficient number of fellow- 
 servants; 2 or, with obviously defective machinery and 
 appliances; 3 or, under running arrangements of trains 
 whereby the risk of injury to him is increased; 4 or, in 
 
 1 Frazier v. P. R. R., 38 Penna. St. 104 ; L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Knittal, 33 
 Ohio St. 468 ; Kroy v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 32 Iowa 357 ; cf. Huey v. D. & B. J. 
 Ry., 5 Irish C. L. 206. 
 
 2 Skip v. E. C. Ry., 9 Ex. 243 ; C. & E. I. R. R. v. Geary, 110 111. 383, 18 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 606 ; B. & O. R. R. v. State, 41 Md. 268 ; C. & N. W. 
 Ry. v. Donahue, 75 111. 106. 
 
 3 Dynen v. Leach, 26 L. J. Ex. 221 ; Assop v. Yates, 2 H. & N. 768 ; Grif- 
 fiths v. Gidlow, 3 Id. 648 ; Woodley v. M. D. Ry., 2 Ex. D. 384; Marsden v. 
 Haigh, 14 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 526 ; G. & C Ry. v. Bresmer, 
 97 Penna. St. 103 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Schertle, Id. 450, 2 Am. A ring. K. K. < as. 
 158; Cooper v. Butler, 103 Penna. St. 412; C. & A. R. R. v. Monroe, 85 111. 
 25 ; Perigo v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 52 Iowa 276 ; Muldowney v. I. C. R. I: ., 89 
 Id. 615 ; Kroy v. C, R. I. & P. R. R, 32 Id. 357 ; Way ». I. « '. K. I.'.. -40 Id. 
 341; Mansfield C. & C. Co. v. McEnery, 91 Penna. St. 185; Wanaraaker v. 
 Burke, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 225 ; De Graff v. N. Y. C. & 1 1. B. 
 R. R., 76 N. Y. 125-; Hathaway v. M. C. R. R., 51 Mich. 253, 12 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 249 ; I. C. R. R. v. Jewell, 46 111. 99 ; Greenleaf v. I. I !. B . I: . 29 
 Iowa 14; Greenleaf v. D. & S. C. R. R., 33 Iowa 52; A. & < '. L L. B. R. 
 Ray, 70 Ga. 674, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 281 ; Marsh v. < flickering, 101 N. 
 Y. 396. 
 
 * Robinson v. H. & T. C Ry., 46 Tex. 640. See Nelson v. C, M. & St. P. R. 
 R., 60 Wise. 320, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 391, as to the necessity of allowing
 
 0/4 RIDING ON ENGINE. 
 
 carelessly exposing himself to danger in the conduct of 
 his work. 1 Thus, it has been held to be contributory 
 negligence in a servant to ride on an engine when his 
 duty does not require him to be there ; 2 but it is, of 
 course, not contributory negligence in a servant to ride 
 on the engine when his duty requires him to be there, 
 as, in the case of the chief brakeman of a freight train. 3 
 It is not contributory negligence in a servant to ride in 
 a baggage car, for that is not necessarily a position of 
 danger. 4 It has been held to be contributory negligence 
 in an engine-driver to drive his engine at high speed 
 over a defective roadbed whose defects are known to 
 him ; 5 or, to drive his engine, after a storm, over a line 
 which is liable to be obstructed by land slides or wash 
 outs, at such a rate of speed that the engine cannot be 
 stopped in time to avoid collision with an obstruction; 6 
 
 to conductors and engine-drivers a reasonable opportunity for the examination 
 and comprehension of changes in time-tables. 
 
 1 Senior v. Ward, 1 El. & El. 385, 102 E. C. L. ; Cooper v. Butler, 14 Weekly 
 Notes of Cases (Penna.) 278 ; Payne v. Ross, 100 Penna. St. 301 ; Powers v. N. 
 Y., L. E. & W. R. R, 98 N. Y. 274 ; (sed cf. E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Smith, 9 
 Lea (Tenn.) 685); H. & T. C. Ry. v. Myers, 55 Tex. 110 ; Behrens v. K. P. Ry., 
 5 Colo. 400, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 184; Muldowney v. I. C. R. R., 39 Iowa 
 615 ; Wolsey v. L. S. R. R., 33 Ohio St. 227 ; Ferguson v. C. I. Ry., 58 Iowa 
 293 ; Lockwood v. C. & N. W. Ry., 55 Wise. 50; Abend v. T. H. & I. Ry., Ill 
 111. 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 614 ; Crutchfield v. R. & D. R. R., 78 N. C. 
 300 ; B. & O. R. R. v. Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805 ; Sammon v. N. Y. & H. R. R., 
 62 N. Y. 251 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Rush, 84 111. 570 ; Penna. Co. v. Lynch, 90 111. 
 333; Cunningham v. G, M. & St. P. Ry., 17 led. Rep. 882; Hallihan v. H. & 
 St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 113, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 117 ; Williams v. C. R. R., 
 43 Iowa 396 ; Hoven v. B. & M. R. R., 20 Iowa 562. 
 
 2 Sprong v. B. & A. R. R., 58 N. Y. 56 ; O'Neill v. K. & D. M. Ry., 45 Iowa 
 546 ; Kresanowski v. N. P. Ry., 18 Fed. Rep. 229 ; B. & P. R. R. v. Jones, 95 
 U. S. 439 ; Smith v. M. & L. R. R., 18 Fed. Rep. 304 ; Abend v. T. H. & I. Ry., 
 Ill 111. 202, 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 614 ; Doggett v. I. C. R. R., 34 Iowa 
 284. 
 
 8 Sprong v. B. & A. R. R., 58 N. Y. 56. 
 
 * Washburn v. N. & C. R. R, 3 Head (Tenn.) 638. 
 
 5 M. & C. R. R. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637 ; I. C. R. R. v. Patterson, 69 111. 
 650, 93 Id. 290. 
 
 6 Sweeney v. M. & St. L. Ry., 33 Minn. 153, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 302.
 
 GOING UPON THE LINE. 375 
 
 or, to drive his engine over a switch at a rate in excess 
 of that permitted by the regulations of the railway ; x or, 
 to drive his engine with an obviously defective boiler, 
 under a pressure of steam in excess of the amount per- 
 mitted by the regulations of the line; 2 but it has been 
 held not to be necessarily contributory negligence in an 
 engine-driver to run his engine with ordinary care on a 
 line which he knows to be somewhat out of repair, but 
 as to whose specific defects he has no information ; 3 nor, 
 is it necessarily contributory negligence in the engine- 
 driver of a train which is behind time, to drive his 
 engine at a greater than schedule rate of speed when 
 approaching a switch at the entrance to a railway 
 yard. 4 
 
 328. It is contributory negligence in a servant to 
 unnecessarily go upon or cross the line, without exer- 
 cising care for his safety ; 5 but it is not necessarily con- 
 tributory negligence in a servant to go on the line in 
 the course of duty in the way of a moving train, if he 
 has reason to believe that the train will be brought to a 
 stop before reaching him ; 6 or, to pick up a coupling- 
 pin from the track before a slowly moving train, when 
 he has signalled the engine-driver to stop. 7 In some 
 cases it is held, following the doctrine, of Da vies v. 
 Mann, that even if a servant be contributorily negligent 
 in going upon the line or between the cars, and is 
 
 1 M. & C. R. R. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637 ; G. R. R. & B. Co. v. Oaks, 52 Ga. 
 410. 
 
 2 Ilubgh v. N. O. & C. R. R., 6 La. An. 495. 
 
 3 Mehan v. 8. B. & N. Y. R. R, 73 N. Y. 585 ; JIawley v. N. C. By., 82 Id. 
 370, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 248; Dale v. St. L., K. I !. & N. Ky., 63 Mo. 455. 
 
 * Penn. Co. v. Roney, 89 Ind. 453, 12 Am. & Eng R. R. « las. 223. 
 
 5 Maher v. A. & P. R. R., 64 Mo. 267 ; Bolland v. C, M. & St. P. Ky.. L8 
 Fed. Rep. 243; Boldt v. N. Y. C. R. R., 18 N. Y. 432; contra, Farley v. < , R 
 I. & P. Ry., 56 Iowa 337, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 108 : K I \ I 
 
 5 Colo. 400, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 184; dark v, B. & A R. B., L28 tfaaa, 
 1, 1 Am. & Eng. R.R. ( as. 134. 
 
 8 Steele v. C. R. R., 43 Iowa 109. 7 Steele v. C. K. R., 18 Iowa 109.
 
 376 BOARDING AND LEAVING CABS. 
 
 injured by the negligence of fellow-servants, who know 
 of his danger, and who, by the exercise of care, could 
 avoid injuring him, the railway is liable to him for 
 such injury. 1 It is contributory negligence in a servant 
 to unnecessarily get on or off moving engines or cars; 2 
 but it is not contributory negligence in a servant to 
 jump from a moving train in order to avoid an apparent 
 danger, such as an imminent collision; 3 and in any 
 such case, it is for the jury to decide whether or not 
 the act of the person injured was, under the circum- 
 stances, prudent. 4 It is contributory negligence in a 
 servant to stand on an axle-box of a car in motion ; 5 or 
 to sit upon a platform car in motion with his feet 
 hanging over the side of the car; 6 or to unnecessarily 
 project his body from the door of a baggage car in 
 motion, so that it comes into contact with a bridge sup- 
 port. 7 
 
 329. It is contributory negligence in a servant to 
 couple cars in an unnecessarily dangerous manner, 8 but 
 
 1 B. & O. R. R. v. The State, 33 Md. 542; Bomick v. C, B. I. & B. By., 62 
 Iowa 627, 15 Am. & Eng. B. B. Cas. 288. 
 
 * Cunningham v. C, M. & St. B. By , 17 Fed. Bep. 882; Dowell v. V. & M. 
 B. B., 61 Miss. 519, 18 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 42; Timmon v. C. O. B. B., 
 6 Ohio St. 105. 
 
 3 C. B. B. & B. Co. v. Bhodes, 56 Ga. 645. 
 
 * C. B. B. v. Eoach, 64 Ga. 635, 8 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 79. 
 
 5 Martensen v. C, E. I. & B. By., 60 Iowa 705, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 233. 
 
 6 St. L. & S. F. E. B. v. Marker, 41 Ark. 542 ; cf. Fool v. C, M. & St. B. By., 
 53 Wise. 657, 3 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 332. 
 
 7 Jones v. L. E. E., Ky. , 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 295, note ; cf. H. & 
 T. C. B. E. v. Hampton, 64 Tex. 427, 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 291. 
 
 8 C & A. E. E. v. Bush, 84 111. 570 ; Muldowney v. I. C. E. E., 39 Iowa 
 615 ; Lockwood v. C. & N. W. Ey., 55 Wise. 50, 6 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 151 ; 
 T., W. & W. Ey. v. Black, 88 111. 112; Foster v. C. & A. E. E., 84 111. 164; 
 Penna. Co. v. Hankey, 93 111. 580 ; Williams v. C. E. E., 43 Iowa 396 ; B. & 
 B. E. E. v. Schertle, 97 Benna. St. 450, 2 Am. & Eng. B. E. Cas. 158 ; M. B. 
 Ey. v. Lyde, 57 Tex. 505, 11 Am. & Eng. E. B. Cas. 188 ; Ferguson v. C. L 
 By., 58 Iowa 293, 5 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 614; Hulett v. St. L., K. C. & N. 
 E. E., 67 Mo. 239.
 
 COUPLING CARS. 377 
 
 it is not necessarily contributory negligence in a train 
 hand to go between cars for the purpose of coupling 
 them without first examining the draw-bars in order to 
 see that they are properly adjusted, for every servant is 
 entitled to assume that the instrumentalities of worK 
 provided by the master are in good order. 1 Nor, if 
 cars are moving at a high rate of speed, and the brake- 
 man has signalled the engine-driver to slow up, is it 
 contributory negligence in the brakeman, in reliance 
 on the engine-driver's compliance with his request, to 
 go between the cars for the purpose of coupling them; 2 
 nor is it necessarily contributory negligence in a brake- 
 man to stand facing the draw-bar while coupling; 3 nor 
 is it necessarily contributory negligence in a train hand 
 to step, while his train is in motion, from the top of one 
 car to another; 4 nor to jump from the top of a freight 
 car to the tender rather than to climb down the laddei 
 at the side of the car. 5 
 
 330. It is contributory negligence in a servant to lie 
 down to sleep on the floor of a round-house so near the 
 track that in turning over in his sleep he puts his leg 
 on the track, where it is run over by an engine when 
 backed into its stall, 6 or to travel on the line in a hand 
 car when a train is known by the injured servant to be 
 due, 7 or to travel on the line in a hand car unprotected 
 
 1 King v. O. R. R. (U. S. C. C. Ind.), 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 119 ; Russell 
 v. M. & St. L. R. R., 32 Minn. 230. 
 
 J Beeras v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 58 Iowa 150, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 658 ; 
 Snow v. H. R. R., 8 Allen 441. 
 
 8 Eclair v. C. & N. W. Ry., 43 Iowa 662. 
 
 * A., T. & S. F. R. R. v. McCandliss, 33 Kans. 366, 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 296. 
 
 * Whitsett v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., Iowa , 22 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 336. 
 
 8 Price v. H. & St. J. R. R., 77 Mo. 508, 15 Am. & Eng. R. B. I ■>- 168. 
 
 * Burling v. I. C. R. R., 85 111. 18; I. C. R. R. v. Modglin, LI. 481 ; Bed ef. 
 Campbell v. 0,, R. I. & P. Ry., 45 Iowa 76 ; McKune v. C. S. R. R., Cal. 
 
 17 Am. & Eng. R. B. Cas. 589.
 
 378 RIDING ON TOP OF CARS. 
 
 by flagging in advance, the regulations of the railway 
 having notified the servant that special trains may be 
 expected at any time, 1 or to stand so near to the line as 
 to be struck by a passing car, 2 or to use a temporary 
 platform of pine wood as a bridge in moving heavy 
 freight from one car to another when a stronger platform 
 was available, 3 or to neglect to keep wet the rope of the 
 derrick with which he is working, 4 or to unnecessarily 
 mount on an engine on a turn-table, 5 or to knowingly 
 disobey the regulations of the railway, which, if obeyed, 
 would have prevented the injury, 6 or to attempt, in 
 coupling moving cars, to pass round the end of a freight 
 car which was not equipped with end ladders, platforms, 
 steps, or handles, 7 or to ride on the top of a car where 
 the servant's duty does not require him to put himself 
 in that exposed position, 8 but it is not necessarily con- 
 tributory negligence in a freight brakeman to climb to 
 the top of a moving car in a railway yard for the pur- 
 pose of braking it, and thus averting an impending 
 collision with another car. 9 
 
 331. It is not under all circumstances contributory 
 negligence in a servant to expose himself to a danger 
 which he could avoid ; for instance, an engine-driver is 
 not bound to desert his post on the engine, in order to 
 
 1 McGrath v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R., Mass. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 5. 
 
 2 B. & O. R. R. w.Whittington, 30 Grat. (Va.) 805. 
 s Penna. Co. v. Lynch, 90 111. 333. 
 
 * U. P. Ry. v. Fray, 31 Kans. 739, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 158. 
 
 5 E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Toppins, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 58, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 222. 
 
 6 Lyon v. D., L. & L. M. Ry., 31 Mich. 429 ; G. R. R. & B. Co. v. McDade, 
 59 Ga. 73, 60 Id. 119 ; Wolsey v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 33 Ohio St. 227. 
 
 7 C, B. & Q. R. R. v. Warner, 108 111. 538, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 100. 
 
 8 P. & C. R. R. v. Sentmayer, 92 Penna. St. 276 ; Gibson v. E. Ry., 63 N. Y. 
 449. 
 
 • Kelley v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 50 Wise. 381, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 65.
 
 servant's contributory negligence. 379 
 
 escape an impending collision; 1 but a servant is con- 
 tributorily negligent when he exposes himself to a 
 danger which he could avoid without neglecting his 
 duty by the exercise of reasonable care for his own 
 safety. If, however, the danger be not so great, nor so 
 imminent, that a man of ordinary prudence would re- 
 fuse to encounter it in the performance of his duty, the 
 servant who voluntarily incurs that danger is not neces- 
 sarily contributorily negligent. 2 It may also be said 
 that when a servant is injured by reason of his presence 
 in a position of danger, the burden of proof is on him 
 to show that his duty to the railway requires him to place 
 himself in that position. 3 
 
 332. The general doctrine as to the effect of a servant's 
 contributory negligence in barring his recovery is well 
 illustrated by Cunningham v. C, M. & St. P. Ey., 4 
 where a mother having brought suit to recover for the 
 death of her son, a yardman, who was killed in attempt- 
 ing to step on the rear foot-board of a switching engine 
 which was backing towards him, Miller, J., after re- 
 ferring to the obligation on the part of the railway to 
 exercise care in providing the instrumentalities of 
 labour, added, "a man has no right to thrust himself 
 foiward into a dangerous position and say, 'if I am 
 killed, somebody will get damages for it,' or, 'if I am 
 hurt, I shall go to the hospital and be taken care of and 
 recover damages.' He has got to take care of himself, 
 as well as the railroad to take care of their duties and 
 their employes. These obligations are mutual, and it 
 
 1 Cottrill v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 47 Wise. 634 ; Penna. Co. v. Roney, 89 Tnd. 
 453, 12 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 223. 
 
 * Stoddard v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 65 Mo. 514; C. C. R. R. v. Og<lcn, .*', 
 Colo. 499. 
 
 3 C. R. R. v. Sears, 61 Ga. 279 ; A. & C. A. L. R. R. v. Ray 70 Ga. <;; I, 22 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 281. 
 
 4 17 Fed. Rep. 882, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 217.
 
 380 servant's contributory negligence. 
 
 is the law that if a man voluntarily puts himself in a 
 dangerous position — does so unnecessarily when there 
 are other positions in connection with the discharge of 
 his duty which are safe, which he can be placed in, — 
 he cannot recover of the railroad company in damages 
 for that injury to which he has contributed by his own 
 negligence. That is the law. It is your duty to regard 
 it, and you have no right to say, that, because this rail- 
 road company is a great and powerful instrumentality, 
 it must pay for this man's life, whether he was negli- 
 gent, or careless, or not." The jury having found a 
 verdict for the plaintiff, Miller, J., promptly set the 
 verdict aside. 
 
 333. It is not necessarily contributory negligence in 
 a servant to expose himself to risk of injury in the per- 
 formance of his duty, where the circumstances are not 
 such as to afford to the servant an opportunity of esti- 
 mating the amount of risk incurred ; thus, in Lawless v. 
 C. R. R. R., 1 where a railway was held liable to a ser- 
 vant injured in coupling an engine to a car by reason 
 of the draw-bar of the engine being so low that it passed 
 under the bunter of the car, Colt, J., said: "the fact 
 that a person voluntarily takes some risk is not con- 
 clusive evidence, under all circumstances, that he is not 
 using due care. 2 The plaintiff was engaged in perform- 
 ing the duty required of him, and it was necessary that 
 the cars should be moved quickly to make way for an 
 expected train. * * * The question of his due care de- 
 pended, to some extent, upon the view that the jury 
 might take of his necessity for immediate action, tho 
 distance the bunters would have to pass each other be- 
 fore the car and engine would come so near together a? 
 to injure him, the speed at which the engine was mov- 
 
 1 130 Mass. 1, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 96. 
 
 * Thomas v. W. U. T. Co., 100 Mass. 156 ; Mahoney v. M. R. R., 104 Id. 7,1
 
 COMPLAINT OF DANGER. 381 
 
 ing, the knowledge he had that the engineer knew the 
 danger, the confidence he was entitled to have that the 
 engineer would so manage the engine as not to injure 
 him, the reliance he was reasonably entitled to place 
 upon his ability to make the connection so as to prevent 
 the bunters passing, and probably other circumstances." l 
 
 334. The fact that a servant is ordered by his supe- 
 rior officer to do an act that is obviously dangerous, and 
 which when done was the cause of injury to the servant 
 will not render the railway liable for that injury, as, for 
 instance, where the foreman of a construction train 
 ordered a servant to jump from a station platform upon 
 a moving car ; 2 nor is the railway to be held liable where 
 a servant is injured by the negligence of fellow-servants 
 while he is doing an act of apparent danger in obedience 
 to the orders of his superior officer, as, for instance, 
 where a labourer was injured in getting upon a moving- 
 car under the order of his foreman, the engine-driver 
 negligently increasing the speed of the train with a jerk 
 and thus throwing the labourer under the train ; 3 nor is 
 the railway liable to a servant who is injured in obeying 
 the orders of an officer who has no rightful authority to 
 command, as, for instance, where a bridge watchman 
 was injured while working to clear a tunnel of fallen 
 rock under the orders of a servant, who was charged 
 with the duty of looking after killed stock. 4 
 
 335. When the servant has complained to the proper 
 officer either of the defective apparatus or of the negli- 
 gent fellow-servant, and that officer promises to remedy 
 the defect, or to discharge the negligent fellow-servant, 
 
 1 See also Pringle v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 64 Iowa G13, 18 Am. & Eng. R. 1 1. 
 Cas. 91. 
 
 * Cassidy v. M. C. R. R., 70 Me. 488, 17 Am. & Eng. B. Ft. Cas. 519. 
 
 8 Capper v, L. E. & St. L. R. R., 103 Ind. 305, '2\ Am. .v Eng. B. B. I la 
 
 * N. & C. R. R. v. McDaniel, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 386, 17 Am. & Eng. B. B. 
 Cas. 604.
 
 382 STATUTES AFFECTING LIABILITY. 
 
 and the servant in reliance upon the fulfillment of the 
 promise continues in the work, and that defect in the 
 apparatus, or that negligence of the fellow-servant, is 
 not of such a character as to render it unavoidably 
 dangerous to continue the work, such continuance in 
 work is not contributory negligence on the part of the 
 injured servant; and, of course, in the service of a rail- 
 way, it is sufficient that the complaint be made to, and 
 the remedy be promised by that officer who is charged 
 with the duty in the one case, of ordering the repair of 
 defects of the character complained of, and in the other 
 case of discharging negligent servants; 1 but if the 
 danger of using the particular machinery or appliance, 
 or of performing the particular service be so obviously 
 great that a person of ordinary prudence would not con- 
 tinue to take the risk, the injured servant cannot 
 recover, although he acted under the express order of 
 his foreman or other superior officer. 2 
 
 IX. STATUTES AFFECTING THE LIABILITY OF RAILWAYS 
 TO THEIR SERVANTS. 
 
 336. In some jurisdictions the rules of law affecting 
 the liability of railways to their servants have been 
 materially modified by statutes. In England, under 
 the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, 43 & 44 Vict. c. 
 42, there is a statutory liability, with summary remedies, 
 
 1 Holmes v. Clark, 6 H. & N. 349, 7 Id. 937 ; Ford v. F. R. R., 110 Mass. 
 261 ; Lanning v. N. Y. C. R. R., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Patterson v. P. & C. R. R., 76 
 Penna. St. 3S9 ; LeClair v. St. P. & P. R. R., 20 Minn. 9 ; Brabbitts v. R. W. 
 Ry., 38 Mo. 289 ; Belair v. C. & N. W. R. R., 43 Iowa 663 ; Hough v. T. & P. 
 Ry., 100 U. S. 213 ; Conroy v. V. Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35 ; Hawley v. N. C. 
 Ry., 82 N. Y. 370, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 247 ; S. C. & P. Ry. v. Finlayson, 
 
 Neb. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 68 ; K. C, St. J. & C. B. R. R. v. 
 Flvnn, 78 Mo. 195, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 23; Miller v. U. P. Ry., 12 
 Fed. Rep. 600 ; E. T. V. & G. R. R. v. Duffield, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 63, 18 Am. & 
 Eng. R R. Cas. 35. 
 
 1 Baker v. W. & A. R. R., 68 Ga. 699; District of Columbia v. McElligott, 
 117 U. S. 621.
 
 STATUTES AFFECTING LIABILITY. 383 
 
 imposed under certain restrictions upon masters in the 
 cases of injuries to servants resulting, inter alia, from 
 the negligence of persons entrusted with a superintend- 
 ence of the work, and of persons to whose orders or 
 directions the workman at the time of the injury was 
 bound to conform, and, in the cases of railways, of any 
 person " in the service of the employer who has the 
 charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive 
 engine, or train." This Act is to continue in force 
 until December 31, 1887, and to the end of the then 
 next session of Parliament. In Griffiths v. The Earl 
 of Dudley, 1 Cave, J., said : " the Employers' Liability 
 Act was passed to remove the difficulty arising from the 
 decision in Wilson v. Merry. 2 The effect of it is that 
 the workman may bring his action in five specified 
 cases, and the employer shall not be able to say in 
 answer that the plaintiff occupied the position of work- 
 man in his service, and must, therefore, be taken to 
 have impliedly contracted not to hold the employer 
 liable. In other words, the legal result of the plaintiff 
 being a workman shall not be that he has impliedly 
 contracted to bear the risks of the employment." 
 
 337. In Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, 
 Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, railways are 
 by statute made liable to their servants for any neglect 
 or mismanagement by their agents, engineers, or other 
 employes. 3 The Iowa statute provides that " every 
 railroad company shall be liable for all damages sus- 
 tained by any person, including employes of the com- 
 pany, in consequence of any negligence of the agents, 
 or by the mismanagement of the engineers or other 
 
 1 9 Q. B. D. 366. 2 L. R. 1 H. L. Be. 826. 
 
 S C. R. R. v. Mitchell, 63 Ga. 173; Ghimz v. <'., M. & St, !'. Ry M .V-' Wi .,-. 
 672; TIT. Co. v. Thomason, 25 Kans. 1 ; M. P. Ky. v. Ealey, M. 35 ; Bchroeder 
 v. C, R I. & P. R. R., 41 Iowa 344, 47 Id. 375; Deppe v. Same, 86 Id. •">:>; 
 
 Lombard v. Same, 47 Id. 494; Frandsen v. Same, 3G Id. :;7'J.
 
 384 STATUTES AFFECTING LIABILITY. 
 
 employes of the corporation to any person sustaining 
 such damage, all contracts to the contrary notwithstand- 
 ing." The constitutionality of this Act has been sus- 
 tained in Rose v. D. M. R. R. 1 The statutes in the 
 other States are of similar import. 2 
 
 1 39 Iowa 246. 
 
 x See notes to K. P. Ey. v. Peavey, 11 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 260.
 
 THE FORM OF ACTION. 385 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 THE REMEDY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE FORM OF THE ACTION. 
 
 T. When the remedy is by action at law and when by suit in equity. 
 
 ft. "When an action of trespass will lie. 
 TEI. The distinction between case and assumpsit. 
 IV. The joinder of common law and statutory claims. 
 
 V. Payment of money into court. 
 
 1. WHEN THE REMEDY IS BY ACTION AT LAW, AND WHEN 
 BY SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 The remedy is by action at law, excepting in those cases where the in- 
 jury has been done in the operation of a line by a receiver appointed 
 by a court of equity, and the court has refused to the plaintiff leave 
 to sue its receiver at law ; in such a case the plaintiff's only remedy 
 is in equity. 
 
 338. The remedy of the injured party is by an action 
 at law, excepting in those cases where the injury has 
 been done in the operation of a railway by a receiver 
 acting under the order of a court of equity, and the 
 court has refused to the plaintiff leave to bring his 
 action at law ; in such a case the only remedy of the 
 plaintiff is to present his claim on the fund in the re- 
 ceiver's hands at the audit of the receiver's accounts, 
 for it must be remembered that a receiver, as an officer 
 of the court appointing him, is only suable by its per- 
 
 1 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 135 ; Klein v. Jewett, 2G N. J. Eq. 474. 
 25
 
 380 CONTRACT AND TOUT. 
 
 The distinction between actions sounding in tort and actions sounding 
 in contract is in theory only formal, but in practice the distinction 13 
 material. 
 
 339. English lawyers, following in the footsteps of 
 the civil law, have drawn a sharp distinction between 
 actions sounding in tort and in contract, yet, as Mr. 
 Robert Campbell has pointed out, 1 this distinction is 
 in theory only formal, for all actions at law are grounded 
 upon the breach of a duty. That duty may have been 
 imposed upon the railway, either by its contract with 
 the plaintiff, or by reason of the relation in which the 
 plaintiff stands to it. In the former case the plaintiff's 
 right of action may be said to arise ex contractu, and 
 in the latter case ex delicto, but in either case the plain- 
 tiff's right to recover is necessarily based upon the 
 railway's breach of duty to him ; yet, in jurisdictions 
 where the common law rules of pleading and practice 
 have not been materially departed from, the form in 
 which the plaintiff brings his action may control the 
 amount of his damages, or even affect his right to re- 
 cover. 
 
 II. TRESPASS. 
 
 The railway is liable in trespass only for injuries wilfully inflicted by 
 its express authority or subsequently ratified. 
 
 340. To render a railway liable in trespass for per- 
 sonal injuries, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show 
 that the injury was wilfully inflicted by an agent, or 
 servant, of the railway, and that the act which caused 
 the injury was expressly directed, or subsequently rati- 
 fied, by the corporation. 2 A railway company can act 
 only by its agents, or servants. When, therefore, a plain- 
 
 1 Treatise on the Law of Negligence 12. 
 
 1 Gregory v. Piper, 9 B. & C. 591, 17 E. C. L. ; Yerger v. Warren, 31 Penna. 
 St. 319 ; McLaughlin v. Pry or, 4 M. &. G. 48, 43 E. C. L. ; Gordon v. Rolt, 4 
 Ex. 364.
 
 TRESPASS. 387 
 
 tiff has been injured, that injuiy, in almost every con- 
 ceivable case, has resulted, not from the exercise of 
 wilful force upon the part of the defendant company, 
 nor by the action of its agents and servants in obedience 
 to orders, or express instructions, but from the negli- 
 gence of those agents or servants. If the driver of an 
 engine were, under the express instructions of an execu- 
 tive officer of the corporation, to run down a person, or 
 an animal, upon the line, or if, in obedience to the same 
 authority, the train hands were forcibly to eject a pas- 
 senger from the train, the corporation would be liable in 
 trespass. In the leading case of Scott v. Shepherd, 1 the 
 defendant was held liable to the plaintiff in trespass 
 because, by wantonly throwing the squib, he was held 
 to have intended all the consequences that followed 
 upon the original throwing. As Tilghman, C. J., said 
 in Smith v. Rutherford: 2 " the criterion of trespass 
 is force directly applied." Therefore, to render a de- 
 fendant liable in trespass, the act which injured the 
 plaintiff must have been done either personally by the 
 defendant, or by the defendant's servants, under his 
 express instructions. In Gregory v. Piper, 3 the defend- 
 ant, in order to obstruct a right of way claimed by the 
 plaintiff, had directed his servant to pile rubbish on his 
 premises near to, but not touching, the plaintiff's wall. 
 The servant did the work carefully, but some of the 
 rubbish naturally ran against the wall. It was held 
 that the defendant was liable in trespass, Littledale, J., 
 saying: "if the servant, therefore, in carrying into 
 execution the orders of his master, uses ordinary care 
 and an injury is done to another, the master is Liable in 
 trespass. If the injury arises from the want of ordinary 
 care, and an injury is done to another, the master is 
 
 1 2 W. Bl. 892, 1 Sm. L. C. 549. * 2 S. & R. 3G0. 
 
 » 9 B. & C. 591, 17 E. C. L.
 
 3S8 TRESPASS. 
 
 liable in case." In Yerger v. Warren, 1 the facts were 
 almost identical with those in Gregory v. Piper, and judg- 
 ment for the plaintiff in the court below was reversed in 
 the Supreme Court, because the judge at the trial had 
 directed the jury that the relation of master and servant 
 rendered the defendant liable in trespass, whereas the 
 jury should have been instructed that, unless the wrong 
 complained of had been done by the defendant's order, 
 he could not be liable for the trespass. In McLaugh- 
 lin v. Pryor, 2 the defendant sitting in his carriage 
 had directed his postilion to drive into a line of carriages 
 under such circumstances that his carriage necessarily 
 collided with the plaintiff's carriage. It was held that 
 he was liable to the plaintiff in trespass. In Gordon v. 
 Holt, 3 the defendant was a contractor, whose servants, 
 without his authority, broke the plaintiff's crane ; it 
 was held that the defendant was not liable, Parke, B., 
 saying : " the result of the authorities is, that if a ser- 
 vant in the course of his master's employ drives over 
 any person and does a wilful injury, the servant, and not 
 the master, is liable in trespass ; if the servant by his 
 negligent driving causes an injury, the master is liable in 
 case. If the master himself is driving, he is liable in 
 case for his negligence, or in trespass because the act 
 was wilful." In P. G. & N. K. E. v. Wilt, 4 the defend- 
 ant's train at a highway crossing struck the plaintiff's 
 wagon and injured it. Verdict and judgment for the 
 plaintiff in trespass was reversed, Rogers, J., saying : 
 " A master is not liable, either in trespass, or in case, 
 for the wilful act of his servant, as by driving his mas- 
 ter's carriage against another without his direction, or 
 assent. But he is liable to answer for any damage aris- 
 ing to another from the negligence, or unskilfulness, 
 
 1 31 Penna. St. 319. » 4 M. & G. 48, 43 E. C. L. 
 
 3 4 Ex. 364. * 4 Whart. 143.
 
 TRESPASS. 389 
 
 of his servant acting in his employ. * * * * * * The 
 authorities are uniform that case, not trespass, is the 
 proper remedy." Sharrod v. L. & N. W. By. 1 is to 
 the same point. There the plaintiff's sheep, through a 
 defect in a fence, got upon the defendant's line, and 
 were run over by an engine driven at the rate of speed 
 allowed by the defendant's regulations. It was held 
 that the plaintiff could not recover in trespass, Parke, 
 B., saying, page 585 : " The maxim qui facit per alium 
 facit per se, renders the master liable for all the negli- 
 gent acts of the servant in the course of his employment, 
 but that liability does not make the direct act of the 
 servant the direct act of the master. ****** I n a ]i 
 cases where the master gives the direction and control 
 over a carriage, or animal, or chattel, to another rational 
 agent, the master is only responsible in an action on the 
 case for want of skill, or care, of the agent, and no more." 
 In A. V. B. B. v. McLain, 2 the plaintiff was wrongfully 
 ejected by the defendant's conductor from a car, and it 
 was held, reversing the court below, that the defendants 
 were not liable in trespass for its servant's act done 
 without its authority, assent, or even knowledge." 
 Drew v. Peer 3 maintains the converse of the proposi- 
 tion, for the plaintiff, having brought case against the 
 defendant, the proprietor of a theatre, for his wrongful 
 expulsion from a theatre, it was held that the act hav- 
 ing been committed in the ordinary course of a servant's 
 employment, but not by the express instructions of the 
 defendant, the action was rightly case, and nol trespass. 
 So in Holmes v. Mather, 4 where the defendant being 
 driven by his servant, and not interfering with his ser- 
 vant's management, the horses ran away, and in turning a 
 corner struck the plaintiff, it was held thai case, not tres- 
 
 1 4 Ex. 580. ' ;, 1 Penna. St. 1 12. 
 
 3 y3 Penna. St. 234. * L. R. 10 Ex. 261.
 
 390 CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 pass, was the proper form of action, because the injury 
 was done by the servant without the master's express in- 
 structions. Therefore, when a person has been injured 
 by negligence upon the part of a railway, or upon the part 
 of the servants of that railway, the railway is not liable 
 in trespass. It is also to be remembered that the action 
 of trespass, being founded ujxm possession, cannot be 
 brought for injury to personal property, unless that 
 personal property was, at the time of the injury, in the 
 possession of the plaintiff. 1 Nor can a father recover 
 in trespass for an injury to a son, who, at the time of 
 the injury, is not in his service. 2 
 
 III. CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 Passengers and servants of the railway may, by virtue of the con- 
 tractual relation between the railway and themselves, sue either in 
 case or assumpsit, bid all other persons can sue only in case, for the 
 relation between the railway and such persons is non-contractual. 
 
 341. He who, not being a passenger nor a servant 
 of the railway, and consequently not standing in a 
 contractual relation to the railway, is injured in the 
 course of its operations, can ground his action only on 
 the railway's breach of duty implied by law, for there 
 is no privity of contract between him and the railway. 
 An injured passenger may sue either in assumpsit upon 
 the contract, or in case upon the breach of the duty 
 raised by the law. 3 The general principle is, as stated 
 
 1 Ward v. McCauley, 4 T. R. 490 ; Spencer v. Campbell, 9 W. & S. 32. 
 
 2 Wilt v. Vickers, 8 Watts 227. 
 
 3 Ansell v. Waterhouse, 6 M. & S. 393 ; Pozzi v. Shipton, 8 Ad. & El. 963. 
 35 E. C. L.; Brothcrton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54, 7 E. C. L.; Bank of Or- 
 ange v. Brown, 3 Wend. 158 ; McCall v. Forsythe, 4 W. & S. 179 ; Zell v. 
 Arnold, 2 Pen. & W. 292; Pittsburgh v. Grier, 22 Penna. St. 54; Marshall v. 
 Y. X. & B. Ry.. 11 C. B. 655, 73 E. C. L.; Skinner v. L. B. & S C. Ry., 5 Ex. 
 787 ; G. N. Ry. v. Harrison, 10 Ex. 376 ; Austin v. G. W. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 442 ; FoulkesV M. D. Ry., 4 C. P. D. 267, 5 Id. 157 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Derby, 
 14 How. 468; Alton v. M. Ry., 19 C. B. N. S. 243, 115 E. C. L. ; P R. R. v.
 
 CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 391 
 
 by Lord Campbell in Brown v. Boorman, 1 that, "wher- 
 ever there is a contract, and something to be done in 
 the course of the employment which is the subject of 
 that contract, if there is a breach of a duty in the 
 course of that employment, the plaintiff may either 
 recover in tort or in contract." Holroyd, J., in Ansell 
 v. Waterhouse, 2 puts the same view, saying, " although 
 the law will raise a contract with a common carrier to 
 be answerable for the careful conveyance of his passen- 
 gers, nevertheless he may be charged in an action upon 
 the case for a breach of his duty." 
 
 Yet the action, when brought to recover for injuries to a passenger, or 
 to a servant of the railway, is so far founded upon the contractual 
 relation between the railway and the person injured, that, whether 
 the form of the action be case or assumpsit, a stranger to the contract 
 cannot recover therein. 
 
 342. While, as Byles, J., said in Alton v. The Mid- 
 land By., 3 " the plaintiff has his election to sue either 
 upon the contract or for the tort," yet, " by changing 
 the form of action, the right to sue cannot be extended 
 to a 'stranger,'" for, as Blackburn, J., said, in Ilobbs 
 v. L. & S. W. By., 4 " the action is in reality upon a 
 contract; it is commonly said to be founded upon a 
 duty, but it is a duty arising out of a contract." The 
 action, therefore, when brought by an injured passenger, 
 is so far founded upon the railway's duty as arising out 
 of the contract between the railway and the passenger, 
 that only a party privy to that contrail can recover, 
 whether the form of action be case or assumpsit. Thus, 
 in Alton v. Midland By., 5 the plaintiff declared in case 
 
 Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537 ; B. C. P. Ry. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74, 18 Am. & Eng. 
 R, R. Cas. 220 ; Nevin v. P. P. C. Co., 10G 111. 222, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 92. 
 
 1 11 CJ. & Fin. 44. ■ 6 M. & 8. 393. 
 
 3 19 C. B. N. S. 243, 115 E. C. L. ' L. K. 10 Q. B. 119. 
 
 6 19 C. B. N. S. 213, 115 E. C. L.
 
 392 CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 for injury to Lis servant, a passenger on defendant's 
 road, and consequent loss of services, averring that the 
 defendant had contracted to carry the servant " for hire 
 and reward to the defendant in this behalf;" the 
 defendants demurred to the declaration, and also 
 pleaded that they had contracted with the servant and 
 not with the plaintiff. On demurrer the plea was held 
 good, on the ground that a master can recover for loss 
 of his servant's services only when caused by a pure 
 wrong, but never when that wrong is, in substance, 
 only a breach of contract. In F. & A. St. P. By. Co. 
 v. Stutler, 1 a mother sued to recover for injuries to her 
 minor son, a passenger on defendant's line, the injuries 
 being caused by defendant's negligence. It was held, 
 reversing the court below, and following Alton v. Mid- 
 land By., that the plaintiff could not recover, the 
 ground of decision being that only a party to the con- 
 tract can recover for a breach of duty founded on that 
 contract. 2 
 
 Where the ground of action is a pure tort, any one who has suffered 
 a pecuniary loss directly resulting therefrom, may recover in case. 
 
 343. But where there is no contractual relation 
 between the railway and the injured person, any one 
 who, by reason of that injury, has suffered a pecuniary 
 loss, may recover in case for a breach of the duty of the 
 railway to carry safely any one whom they have re- 
 ceived upon their line or premises ; thus, in Marshall v. 
 Y., N. & B. By., 3 where the plaintiff, the valet of a 
 nobleman, sued to recover damages for his luggage lost 
 
 1 54 Penna. St. 375. 
 
 2 Yet it has been held in Massachusetts that a master can recover in case for 
 injuries to his servant while a passenger on defendant's line : Ames v. U. Ry., 
 117 Mass. 541. 
 
 3 11 C. B. 655, 73 E. C. L.
 
 CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 393 
 
 on defendant's line, the plaintiff having been a passen- 
 ger, but his ticket having been bought and paid for by 
 his master, it was held that the plaintiff could recover, 
 Jervis, C. J., saying, the action lies for the luggage, 
 sued for as for personal injuries, " not by reason of any 
 contract between him and the company, but by reason 
 of a duty implied by law to carry him safely." So, in 
 Berringer v. G. E. Ry., 1 the claim alleged that the 
 plaintiff's servant took a ticket and travelled by the L. 
 I. & S. Ry., and that the train on which the servant was 
 a passenger came into collision with the defendant's train 
 at a junction through the negligence of the defendant's 
 employes, and that the servant was injured; and it 
 was held on demurrer that the action being against 
 independent wrongdoers, not parties to the contract 
 of carriage, and for a pure tort, the plaintiff could 
 recover. 
 
 DISTINCTIONS IN PRACTICAL EFFECT BETWEEN THE AC- 
 TIONS OF CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 When the plaintiff sues in assumpsit, he must at Ids peril join all of the 
 parties with whom he contracted, he can recover for no tortious act 
 that is not a breach of the contract declared upon, and his recovery 
 therein is a bar to his subsequent action in another right upon the 
 same contract; whereas when he sues in case, he may join, as de- 
 fendants, any or all of those whose breach of duty injured him, he 
 may recover all such damages as proximately result from the breach 
 of duty, and his recovery in one right is no bar to his recovery in 
 another right for the same injury. 
 
 344. When the plaintiff sues in case he may, at hia 
 election, join as defendants any or all of the parties 
 whose breach of duty has caused his injury, but where 
 
 1 4 C. P. D. 1G3.
 
 30-1 CASE AND ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 lie sues in assumpsit lie must, at his peril, sue all the 
 parties to the contract. 1 Thus, in Ansell v. Water- 
 house, 2 the plaintiff having averred in his narr that the 
 defendant was the proprietor of a stage coach, who, 
 as such, had received the plaintiff as a passenger under 
 a duty to carry him safely, and that by the negligence 
 of the defendant's servants, the plaintiff had been in- 
 jured, and the defendant having pleaded in abatement 
 that sixteen other named persons were co-partners, and 
 should have been joined as defendants, upon general 
 demurrer the plea was held bad, Bayley, J., saying : 
 " There is a broad distinction in personal actions between 
 tort and assumpsit, or such actions as arise ex contractu 
 and ex delicto, which are founded upon contracts or upon 
 wrongs independently of contract, and the proceedings 
 vary accordingly. In assumpsit the plaintiff in his dec- 
 laration and proof is confined to the very terms of the 
 contract, and can recover in damages for no tortious act 
 farther than it is a breach of the defendant's promise, 
 express or implied. Whereas actions upon the case lie 
 for the recovery of damages for consequential wrongs 
 accruing from misfeasance or nonfeasance from the 
 negligence or wilful conduct of the party, and in doing 
 or omitting something contrary to the duty which the 
 law casts upon him in the particular case." 
 
 345. Where the plaintiff sues in case he may recover 
 for all damages naturally and necessarily arising, result- 
 ing from the defendant's breach of duty to him, and 
 against any one or more of the parties whose breach of 
 duty has caused his injuries. 3 But when he sues in 
 
 1 McCall v. Forsyth, 4 W. & S. 179 ; Brotherton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54, 
 7 E. C. L.; Ansell v. Waterhouse, 6 M. & S. 385, 18 E. C. L. 
 
 » 6 M. & S. 385, 18 E. C. L. 
 
 8 Tompkins v. Clay St. H. R. Co., Cal. , 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 144 ; 
 Stone v. Dickinson, 5 Allen 29; Churchill v. Holt, 127 Maps. 165; Bryant v. 
 Bigelow Carpet Co., 131 Id. 491.
 
 JOINDER OF CLAIMS. 395 
 
 assumpit he can recover in damages for no tortious act 
 further than that it is a breach of the defendant's 
 promise, express or implied ; thus, in Murdock v. B. & 
 A. R. R.., 1 the plaintiff was arrested by defendant's ser- 
 vant for an alleged improper use of a ticket, and he 
 sued the defendant in contract for breach of contract of 
 safe carriage, and it was held, following Hobbs' case that 
 the plaintiff could recover only for the natural and 
 proximate consequences of the breach, and that to re- 
 cover for mental and physical suffering following the 
 arrest he should have sued in tort. Where assumpsit 
 is brought and judgment recovered on a breach of a 
 railway's contract of carriage, that judgment is a bar to 
 another action in another right on the same contract ; 
 thus, where a husband has sued and recovered in as- 
 sumpsit for his wife's injuries caused by a railway's 
 negligence in the performance of a contract of carriage 
 of the wife, it was held that that judgment was a bar to 
 a subsequent action of assumpsit brought by the husband 
 to recover for loss of the wife's services and his expen- 
 diture for her medical treatment. 2 
 
 IV. THE JOINDER OF COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY 
 
 CLAIMS. 
 
 Common law and statutory claims for damages may, under certain 
 conditions, be joined. 
 
 346. Common law and statutory claims for damages 
 may be joined in the same action, where they of the same 
 nature, admit of the same pleas, and are followed by the 
 same judgment. 3 
 
 1 133 Mass. 15, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 400. 
 » Pollard v. N. J. R. & T. Co., 101 U. S. 223. 
 » Martin v. Stille, 3 Whart. 337 ; P. R. R v. Bock, 93 Penna. St. 427.
 
 396 PAYMENT INTO COURT. 
 
 V. PAYMENT OF MONEY INTO COURT. 
 
 The payment of money into court admits, under certain limitations, 
 the cause of action. 
 
 347. Payment of money into court by the railway 
 where the form of action is case, and the declaration 
 general and unspecific, admits a cause of action, but not 
 the cause of action sued for ; where the declaration is 
 . specific, so that nothing would be due from the railway 
 to the plaintiff, unless it admitted the particular claim 
 made by the plaintiff, the payment into court necessarily 
 admits the cause of action so averred in the declaration. 
 Payment of money into court upon a general count on 
 assumpsit admits only a cause of action to the amount 
 paid into court, and operates as an admission for no 
 other purpose. Payment of money into court upon a 
 declaration on a special contract admits the contract and 
 the breach. 1 
 
 1 Perren v. M. By. & C. Co., 11 C. B. 855, 73 E. C. L. ; Schreger v. Carden, 
 Id 851.
 
 RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DEATH. 397 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE EIGHT OP ACTION FOR INJURIES CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 I. The statutory right of action. 
 II. The common law right. 
 III. Terms of statutes conferring the right of action. 
 
 I. THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF ACTION. 
 
 At common law no action lies to recover damages for death, caused by 
 
 a tort. 
 
 348. The rule of the common law is, as laid down by- 
 Lord Ellenborough in Baker v. Bolton, 1 that " in a civil 
 court the death of a human being cannot be complained 
 of as an injury," and the maxim actio personalis moritur 
 cum persona succinctly expresses the legal theory that 
 a right of action for a tort, being personal, dies with 
 the person injured, and that any action brought there- 
 for abates at common law with the death of the plain- 
 tiff. 2 The preamble to Lord Campbell's Act, 3 to be 
 hereinafter referred to, recites that " no action is now 
 maintainable against a person who by his wrongful acts 
 may have caused the death of another person. In Os- 
 born v. Gillett, 4 the plaintiff declared against the de- 
 fendant for injuries to the plaintiff's daughter and 
 servant, by reason whereof she afterwards died, claim- 
 ing as special damages the loss of her services and her 
 burial expenses; and the defendant having pleaded, 
 inter alia, that the daughter " was killed upon the spot 
 
 1 1 Campb. 493. 
 
 2 Higgins v. Bucher, Yelv. 89; Eden v. L. & F. R. R., 14 B. Monr. 204; 
 Carey v. B. Ry., 1 Gush. 475; Kramer v. S. F. M. St. R. R., 26 Oal. 484. 
 
 • 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93. * L. R. 8 Ex. 88.
 
 398 RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DEATH. 
 
 by the acts and matters mentioned in the declaration, 
 so that the plaintiff did not and could not sustain any 
 damage which entitles him to sue in this action," judg- 
 ment on demurrer was entered for the defendant by 
 Kelly, C. B., and Pigott, B. [Bramwell, B., dissenting], 
 upon the authority of Baker v. Bolton, and the legis- 
 lative recognition of the principle of that case in the 
 preamble to Lord Campbell's Act. So, in Pulling v. 
 G. E. By., 1 Pulling having, by the negligence of the 
 defendant, been injured at a level crossing, and after 
 bringing suit having died, and his widow and adminis- 
 tratrix having been substituted as plaintiff in the action, 
 and by her statement claiming damages for loss of de- 
 cedent's wages, medical expenses, and injury to his per- 
 sonal estate, judgment upon demurrer was given for 
 the defendant, upon the ground that the action being 
 brought for a pure tort did not survive, but was abated 
 by the death of the original plaintiff. 2 So, also, in 
 Cregin v. B. C R. R., 3 it was held that "when a hus- 
 band, having brought suit for injuries to the person of 
 his wife, died, his right of action for the loss of his 
 wife's society died with him, but his right of action for 
 the loss of his wife's services and for his expenses for 
 her medical treatment, being a pecuniary loss dimin- 
 ishing his estate, survived to his personal representa- 
 tives. The rule has also been applied where a widow 
 sued to recover for the death of her husband, an engine- 
 driver in a railway's service; 4 and where a husband 
 sued for the death of his wife killed by the railway's 
 negligence. 5 The same principle has been asserted in 
 
 1 9 Q. B. D. 110. s Cf. Twycross v. Grant, 4 C. P. D. 40. 
 
 8 83 N.Y. 595. 
 
 * Hubgb. v. N. O. & C. R. R., 6 La. An. 495, 498 ; Herrmann v. Same, 11 
 Id. 5. 
 
 6 Green v. H. R. R. R, 2 Keyes (N.Y.) 294; Lucas v. N.Y. C. R. R., 21 
 Barb. (N.Y.) 245.
 
 BIGHT OF ACTION FOR DEATH. 399 
 
 actions brought by life assurance companies to recover 
 from persons, natural or corporate, by whose wilful or 
 negligent acts assured persons were killed and the as- 
 surance companies thereby compelled to make payment 
 of the amounts assured on the lives of such persons. 
 Thus, in Mobile Life Insurance Co. v. Brame, 1 Brame 
 having wilfully killed McLemore, upon whose life 
 policies of assurance had been issued by the corpora- 
 tion plaintiff, payment of which had been made after 
 McLemore's death, the plaintiff sued Brame for the 
 amounts of those policies, as damages caused to it by 
 Brame's act. The cause was heard in the United States 
 Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana upon the 
 defendant's exception to the plaintiff's petition, and 
 judgment having been rendered thereon for the de- 
 fendant, was affirmed in error in the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, upon the ground that the relation 
 between the plaintiff and the assured was created by a 
 contract to which the defendant was not a party, and 
 that the damage to the plaintiff in being compelled to 
 make good its contract with the assured was not a ne- 
 cessary or proximate result of the wrong done by the 
 defendant in killing the assured. In Connecticut 
 Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. N. Y. & N. H. R R., 2 
 the same rule was applied where the plaintiff sought to 
 recover for the killing of its assured by negligence on 
 the part of the railway. 
 
 II. THE COMMON LAW RIGHT. 
 
 But where the death is caused by a breach of contract, an action lies at 
 common law to recover damages for the loss to the decedent's estate 
 directly resulting from that breach of contract. 
 
 349. But, of course, a different rule applies where the 
 injury, although from one point of view a tort, is from 
 
 1 95 U. S. 754. ' 25 Co™- 265 '
 
 400 EIGIIT OF ACTION FOR DEATH. 
 
 another point of view a breach of contract, and it has 
 been held that in such cases the right of action survives 
 to the personal representatives. This rule has been 
 extended to permit recoveries by the executors of pas- 
 sengers injured by a railway's breach of its contract of 
 carriage. In Knight v. Quarles, 1 an administrator hav- 
 ing brought assumpsit, and averred in his narr that the 
 defendant, for certain fees to be paid him, undertook, as 
 an attorney, to examine a title for the plaintiff's intes- 
 tate, and that he omitted to do so, and that the intes- 
 tate in consequence took an insufficient title, whereby 
 his personal estate was injured, judgment on demurrer 
 was entered for the plaintiff, and Richardson, J., said : 
 " if a man contracted for a safe conveyance by coach, 
 and sustained an injury by a fall, by which his means 
 of improving his personal property was destroyed, and 
 that property in consequence was injured, though it was 
 clear he in his lifetime might, at his election, sue the 
 coach proprietor in contract, or in tort, it could not 
 be doubted that his executor might sue in assumpsit for 
 the consequences of the coach proprietor's breach of 
 contract." Willes, J., in his judgment in Alton v. Mid- 
 land Ry., 2 said, referring to Knights v. Quarles : " sup- 
 pose the personal estate of a servant sustained injury 
 through the defendant's breach of duty, as if he had 
 taken a quantity of luggage with him which had been 
 lost, or damaged, it is clear his executor could have sued 
 for that damage." In Potter v. M. Ry., 3 a wife having 
 been injured, while a passenger, by the defendant's neg- 
 ligence, and her husband having died, sued as his ad- 
 ministratrix to recover for her husband's loss in respect 
 of the injuries to her, and it was held in the Exchequer 
 Chamber that the right of action being founded on a 
 
 1 2 Brod. & B. 102, 6 E. C. L. » 19 C. B. N. S. 245, 115 E. C. L. 
 
 • 30 L. T. N. S. 765, 32 Id. 36.
 
 EIGHT OF ACTION FOE DEATH. 401 
 
 breach of contract survived to the husband's personal 
 representative. In Bradshaw v. L. & Y. By., 1 where a 
 passenger, having been injured in a railway accident, 
 died in consequence of his injuries, but after an interval, 
 it was held that his executrix could recover in an action 
 on the contract for the damage suffered by the dece- 
 dent's estate by reason of the breach of the defendant's 
 contract to carry him with reasonable safety, the ground 
 of the decision being that the damage was not caused by 
 the decedent's death, but by his inability to attend to his 
 business during his lifetime, that inability resulting 
 from the accident. Bradshaw's case was followed as an 
 authority, but with apparent reluctance, in Leggott v. 
 G. N. By., 2 where the plaintiff, having sued to recover 
 under Lord Campbell's Act as the administratrix of her 
 deceased husband, again brought suit to recover for in- 
 jury done to his personal estate by reason of his inabil- 
 ity to attend to business from the date of the accident 
 to the date of his death, and it was held that the re- 
 covery in the first action was no bar to a recovery in 
 the second, the causes of action being different, and that 
 as the plaintiff sued in the two actions in different rights, 
 the pleadings in the first action, and the verdict for the 
 plaintiff therein, did not estop the defendant from deny- 
 ing, in the second action, the cause and the circum- 
 stances of the injury. 3 
 
 The right of action in suits to recover damages for death earned by a 
 tort is, therefore, statutory. 
 
 350. Therefore, for want of a common law remedy, 
 statutes vesting in certain designated persons a right of 
 action for injuries resulting from death by negligence 
 have been passed in different jurisdictions, and in the 
 
 1 L. E. 10. C. P. 189. '1 Q- B. D.699. 
 
 8 See also Cregin v. B. C. E. E., 83 N. Y. 595. 
 26
 
 402 STATUTES VESTING THE EIGHT. 
 
 case of a death, caused in any jurisdiction by a railway's 
 breach of duty, the terms of the statute in force in the 
 particular jurisdiction must be looked to in order to 
 determine the right to sue, the form of action, the 
 parties plaintiff and defendant, the conditions of lia- 
 bility, and the measure of damages. 
 
 III. STATUTES CONFEEEING A EIGHT OF ACTION FOE DEATH. 
 
 351. The first of these statutes was enacted in Eng- 
 land in 1846, 1 and is known as Lord Campbell's Act. 
 It recites in its preamble that, " whereas no action at 
 law is now maintainable against a person who, by his 
 wrongful act, neglect, or default, may have caused the 
 death of another person, and it is oftentimes right and 
 expedient that the wrongdoer in such a case should be 
 answerable in damages for the injuries so caused by 
 him," and it enacts that whensoever the death of a person 
 shall be caused by such act, neglect, or default, "as would, 
 if death had not ensued, have entitled the party to 
 maintain an action to recover damages in respect there- 
 of," then the person who would have been liable if 
 death had not ensued shall, notwithstanding the death 
 of the person injured, be liable in damages at the suit 
 of the personal representative for the benefit of the wife, 
 husband, parent, and child of the deceased. The act 
 further authorizes the jury to "give such damages as 
 they may think proportioned to the injuries resulting 
 from such death to the parties respectively for whom 
 and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, the 
 damages to be apportioned among the beneficiaries as 
 the jury shall direct. The act also provides that not 
 more than one action shall lie for and in respect of the 
 same subject-matter complained of. A later act 2 pro- 
 
 1 9 & 10 Vict. c. 94. * 27 & 28 Vict. c. 95.
 
 STATUTES VESTING THE EIGHT. 403 
 
 vides that if there be no personal representative any one 
 of the beneficiaries may bring the action. Lord Camp- 
 bell's Act has been followed in the statutes now in force 
 in Canada ; and in the states of the United States, stat- 
 utes of like effect have been enacted, references to, and 
 the material provisions of which are given in the follow- 
 ing table :
 
 404 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 2 ==3 si ta 
 -5 § 
 
 ^2fcS 
 
 
 i5"2*°a 
 
 go 
 
 cfl * ~ 
 
 S" . S » o5 eg <B 2 
 
 "-£.2^.2 si ~2 
 
 H ; - - V «? £ 
 
 5 a, « o3« w g •* 
 ougos. . . o 2 
 * 2 .2 *■■ .S a! 22 o-d 
 
 oj'OS w S K*' 
 
 cir-ll 
 
 c & 't 2 5 
 
 J,2c*2 
 
 3_ J 'd 3 " 
 S « 3,3 fe 
 ^ a> o o 
 
 O 3 ^Ot3 
 
 ■"js «> g 2 
 
 I'd --2 
 a a h 
 
 ; S 
 
 a) 
 
 ^2 -a 
 
 O O 0J 
 
 Pig o 
 <*.& 2 
 
 <- _ O p < . 
 a) +»3 
 
 2-dS 
 
 £ 3 ~"-Q 
 
 3 o -2 
 
 a) a) 
 
 5 '3 
 
 SsS ° 
 
 R 
 
 mpensa 
 the pec 
 e wife 
 
 all the 
 e just. 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 P ~A ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^■^ o >> 
 
 .do 
 
 8g 
 
 nd jus 
 rence 
 ies to 
 in. 
 
 i, und 
 es, ma 
 
 =as^3« 
 
 A fair 
 with re 
 ary inj 
 next oi' 
 
 Such 
 cumstai 
 
 ^8 
 
 i^ o 
 
 a 
 
 fcg 
 
 53 oj 
 
 
 S" £ d 
 
 lis 
 
 
 - C ■£ o 
 
 3 £ ^ 0), 
 
 d "3 g 3 j 
 
 9 K&° 
 
 d 5* .s; 
 isSis.SSS.Sfca 
 
 5 |J 
 
 -a; .2 
 
 '■■~ (3 
 
 ^"3 
 5 8 c d c S 
 
 •di ese-s 
 
 a • ^ ^ (3 
 
 2 ii 9. <» 
 ,3 T3 p. u 
 
 pp. 
 
 ©S8S 
 
 s« - 
 
 o> 
 
 .§5; 
 
 
 . p.^-<j 
 
 l P.P..Q 
 cj al 0) 
 
 5 P -S?a3 
 
 ■ A oS S< 5£ aS 
 
 yC "d Jj ° 'O 2 
 
 5 1> t- 1> a> 
 
 'gg , Ǥ 10 -sS 
 
 15 .CM a^" 
 
 POi-1^ 
 
 -c-i oo ^ m i- 
 i cj ao -; oc ?D 
 
 I If Tj" PtH iH 

 
 STATUTES. 
 
 405 
 
 £0 . o c3 
 
 £. = S £ £ 5 
 ♦"do? - ~ 
 
 o 3.5 «3o 
 £. -•-=•_ o 
 
 *d O .■«_• — 
 
 --* 
 
 h d d • ; 
 
 53 .9 
 
 «* 
 
 .5 x - =a 
 
 9> *? O* 1 - 
 
 > o o .y 
 
 ■r-'-Sd o w 
 
 C "£ •_ 3 ED 
 
 3 3 o & "™ 
 
 ^ — . O m 
 
 5 r T>iS3<0 , dO'-)< • -J 
 
 
 b§2r~-~d 
 S- ~ 333 
 
 f* O'd > -1 
 
 O O O > ja 
 1- O d "- i~ 
 
 Cv— 3 «B Q t3 
 
 ~ — — ~ to 
 
 o£ ?-d 
 
 oc 5h,s 
 
 43*3*0, 
 
 o a3 £53 
 
 o = G 
 KS x o/d 
 
 s <| i * || 
 
 ■2 O J> O _• m $ 
 
 g&g -8. "3 
 
 — 7 > o ^ ft a 
 
 = - od d-a 
 
 o o k a j3 
 t, j- o a ™ 
 
 <5 
 
 ii o-g o'H o 53J, 5 33 2 . 2 3 z.-- q 3 -^ 
 
 a j a so, ^ 5 £ h gag 5 s p,aa«« 
 
 O <3 
 
 p~". 
 
 luOu 
 
 ' § ..1 
 
 a~s 
 
 o * J 
 
 bJI-S 
 
 t^ w*d ® 
 
 s-d o— • 
 o o s ^ 
 
 G B o S 
 
 -0^9 
 £ S B t 
 
 
 >=s >> d 
 
 Ml* .3 
 
 pa 
 
 °.2o 
 III 
 
 ¥ A =3 
 
 MOO 
 
 .d 
 
 5,5 
 
 c. ->- ♦* <-■ 
 o-d~ ^ 
 -5=d£ 
 
 /T-_ • 
 
 
 C fto 
 
 2 
 
 
 1|| 
 
 u 
 
 h =* ° 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Pi B > 
 
 H m - i Ci 
 
 <u-^ o 
 
 * "3 H 
 
 S..» g 
 
 
 d.o o a 
 
 =3^ 
 
 Co 
 
 C:'. 
 
 -d.,-3 - 
 «sai rt 
 
 
 
 > . 
 
 
 E A cS 
 
 
 
 *Z r % 
 
 gco 
 
 - i - 5" 
 
 0.-1 
 
 C, 
 
 1-1 
 
 
 CI - M 
 
 B.4H 
 
 PL,-.-* 
 
 w w
 
 406 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 u 
 
 O e3 
 !»2 
 
 ,o a a; ,0X1 
 
 PL| 
 
 ^a 
 W 
 3 
 
 a O -U X -t-- 43 
 £ — ft >. <D +2 I . 
 
 S >, ST o - y, --5 2 • 
 
 ■ a « * > c_ ,"d a g 
 
 i 1 «.§S 2 a 9 oo o» 
 
 o 
 
 
 >. 
 
 a 
 
 — 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 ri a 
 
 
 
 
 d# 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 z> 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 OJ3..22 
 
 cu-d a o Ph 
 
 •°a so a 
 
 
 'sr« SUSP'S* 
 
 ^-3-a^-^ 
 
 :--^ 
 
 . o 
 
 -d 3 
 
 a * 
 
 « &■ * 
 
 £Sa 
 
 "CO 
 a a; -j 
 
 2=2 *■ 
 
 "■g.s-3 
 
 
 tiTs ». a 
 
 ^ti a 
 
 : C <" a u 
 
 - ^ t<^<a 
 5 S o oSd 
 
 Pn '_ «s a "S cfl . 22 fc 
 
 ' S o * j ^ o) a) 3 ..* 
 
 ig "gj 
 
 a °2 
 5"3 
 
 a o» a 
 >>^.a, 
 
 aa a 
 
 a ~ 
 
 3 S .2 « 
 
 J *2 QJ ~ *5 
 
 ©is oj • 
 © a - 
 
 »-3-a 
 
 Ml 1 " o 
 
 0J r 
 
 fto5 8 
 2d? 5 
 
 !gV2.s 
 
 ■.- s^ ° 
 i B " o 5? 
 
 : . °~3 
 
 a a » tao 
 S.23.9 
 
 cs p,a H 
 
 t->?-a +j 
 
 5- ^ o 
 Ǥa.2 
 
 oj^pi 
 
 
 fa- 
 
 a 3 
 
 a<r/i"^ 
 
 > -j-j =3 .a 
 
 i p^3 
 
 
 ■sSfa 
 
 .C,a> O-^ 
 
 a a 
 c.a 
 
 a .a a- 
 
 >a zj g 
 
 O.S O o 
 
 2 gaS 
 
 55 rt 
 
 o^,^w a 
 
 so *; s.S 
 
 jj<a sites 
 w, g 
 
 
 ^ ■«-? :o co n 
 
 
 C.91P. 
 
 
 ,23 
 
 OS 
 
 o.S 
 
 si 
 
 Ph a 
 
 3.5 
 
 si 
 
 Ph a 
 
 EH 
 
 Ph a 
 
 poo » 
 
 ^r-1 i-H 
 CO © O 
 
 oa^ 
 o - eo - 
 
 <j5Sc3 
 3 do 
 
 Ph^ 
 
 a a
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 407 
 
 52>;«o^s?S 
 
 a o t„ — a a «« 
 
 ©" C3J2 ~~ v.-? 
 
 c£.£<8 B S„t, 
 
 ■n a s342 ,_ a g 
 . a *^ -„- 
 
 Cfl. 
 
 1 
 
 •C si 
 
 " " • h ~ 3 ■ M 
 
 a K~ a "3 to Sh a 
 
 a a 
 ■£T3 
 
 "2 a 
 ^2" 
 
 be distributed 
 y without liabi 
 'Books v. Danv 
 Mann v. Wie 
 >f Cases (Pen i 
 p, 12 Id. 47 ; C 
 , GG Penna. St. 
 
 *^ o 
 
 ry to 
 
 testae 
 
 See 
 
 t. 158 
 
 Notes 
 
 towan 
 
 <B rt 
 
 O - rjiU2 r-4 
 
 
 
 direct. 
 
 Keco 
 
 person 
 
 person 
 
 Reco 
 case ol 
 creditc 
 Penna 
 Weekl 
 L. I. C 
 R. R. v 
 
 13 > 4> 
 
 Bo-3 
 
 •c 0;3 
 •»• e o n 
 
 D C2 a 
 
 -a-2-^S 
 S a? <* a 
 
 oa q;%h 
 
 £ r"^ * 
 
 
 OB'S 
 
 42 H-O 
 
 2 a 
 
 3=j 
 
 a c ^h 
 
 c c-o 
 
 ~ a 
 
 a a 42 
 
 £5=5.^i 
 
 
 Sffi'u 
 
 5 §J 
 
 sg §11 
 
 a — .. O m 
 
 p, m aau 
 
 8 2 S 2-2 
 
 c'S 5 a. 
 
 O 3 a m f»> 
 
 .2.;^. gf's./ 
 
 P 5" a-c 
 
 rr-« s3 
 
 ™ P«0S ■"■ ~ W ^ 
 
 •Strf 
 
 <=" 
 
 a .3 
 <o 
 
 Ph a 
 a 
 
 > id. 
 a . _ 
 
 -§ ft 
 
 
 *s 
 
 ; "O 
 
 > >3 - 
 
 . a: a 
 
 5 -S8 
 
 1 P* r/ 
 
 3 ^43 C 
 
 i a a 
 
 '■2 S" 
 
 >t3 
 .2,3 S 
 
 ;2 g » _ 
 3 2 « o 
 
 a S u xl 
 "S «3 a) +3 
 
 >. .- Q 
 
 43 a"" 
 
 -"■■= s?a 
 S'a 
 >S 
 
 
 c a 5 
 
 f3 O 
 
 <2 ' 
 £ I" 
 
 •s >» « 
 
 •g 3: ! 
 
 "2 a 
 "?3 
 
 ,- = = >. s j_ 
 
 a « a a 
 «— *- t- u 
 
 5 M 
 
 43 a 
 
 >. - H = O S3 
 — s3 C C 
 
 a H c — 'O '• 
 
 — -ra *o 
 
 
 c t; 1- 
 
 S2 . 
 
 5c 2£S£ 
 
 'il-! a -, t. rf 
 
 in gSnt 3^ 
 
 «3 ^j ^^jg p^ .a :j3 
 
 42 a 
 
 S-4 
 
 s^ 
 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 24
 
 408 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 B S* E 
 
 S" 
 
 co 
 
 - — ^> c„ fli ,a oj 
 
 <y 
 
 , a) 
 
 Sot 
 
 C g 3 P ^'3a 
 
 00 fl} - - - ■" ~ 
 
 5 "oi 
 
 -bo 
 
 a* 2 
 
 o o 7! 
 
 •° a * 
 
 us oj "S'a -h 
 
 
 -"= 
 
 j>a 
 
 C >. =3 ~ 0) -S cf 
 
 ,3 H-^^-0 OJ 
 
 
 5J^s^ ft o 
 
 w r 10 or a 03 tu 
 ?afl!i c3.Q a 
 
 <u a j 
 
 o> O o d 
 
 1 S * 
 
 0: 3 
 
 « 3 ° „ 
 
 oft ^ oS 
 
 "* a 
 
 £ oj 
 o 
 
 03 « 
 go> 
 
 *£ 
 
 « 8Si? 
 a -qc > a 
 
 0.5 
 
 h =3 
 
 
 Pife4 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 «^CJ.~ 
 
 . 
 
 jH 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 c3o 
 
 ■d 
 
 £ sa 
 
 .2 A 
 
 S 1 "! 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 « 
 
 Code 
 96, as a 
 
 LCt of 
 
 878. 
 
 ao 
 2«*> 
 
 CO 
 
 P. 
 
 
 C. ~*it-H 
 
 ^ 
 
 <W
 
 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EFFECT. 409 
 
 Statutes vesting a right of action for death have no extra-territorial 
 force, and are enforceable in other jurisdictions only by comity. 
 
 352. Such statutes have no extra-territorial force, and 
 they vest a right to recover only in cases where the 
 death has been caused within the state where the statute 
 is in force. 1 The general rule is that where a person 
 has died from injuries caused by negligence within a 
 jurisdiction whose statutes vest in the personal repre- 
 sentatives of the person so dying a right to recover 
 damages for the death, personal representatives appointed 
 in another jurisdiction may sue in that last jurisdiction 
 for the enforcement of the statutes governing the place 
 of death ; 2 but this doctrine is denied in some juris- 
 dictions. 3 The right to recover damages for death, 
 when established by state legislation, is enforceable in 
 a case between proper parties in the Federal Courts, and 
 the jurisdiction of those courts is not subject to limita- 
 tion by a proviso in a state statute that the action for 
 the recovery of such damages shall be brought only in 
 a state court. 4 
 
 353. The Missouri Statute 5 prohibiting the prosecu- 
 tion by a personal representative of a civil action for 
 injuries to the person of his intestate, an administrator, 
 appointed in Missouri, will not be permitted to sue in 
 that state in order to enforce a right of action un<l< r a 
 Kansas statute for the death of his intestate in Kansas-/ 
 
 1 Whitford v. P. R. R., 23 N. Y. 465 ; N. & C. R. R. v. Eakin, 6 Coldwell 
 (Tenn.) 582. 
 
 » Dennick v. C. R. R., 103 U. S. 11, 1 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cm. 809 ; Leonard 
 v. C. S. N. Co., 84 N. Y. 48; S. C. R. R. v. Nix, Ji.-i <!:i. "-7-J; Morris ,-. C, K. 
 I. & P. Ry., 65 Iowa 727, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 180; N. & < '. R. R. V. 
 Sprayberry, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 852. 
 
 8 Woodward v. M. S. & N. J. R. R, 10 Ohio St. 121 ; Richardson v. N. Y. 
 C. R. R, 98 Mass. 85; McCarthy v. C, R. I. & P. R- E., 18 Kans. 46 ; Taylor 
 v. The Penna. Co., 78 Ky. 348. 
 
 * C. & N. W. Ry. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. ' R. S. 1 879, Sea 97. 
 
 • Vawter v. M. P. R. R., 84 Mo. 679, 19 Am. & Eng. R. E. Oa 176.
 
 410 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EFFECT. 
 
 nor will an administrator appointed in Missouri be per- 
 mitted to sue in Kansas to recover for the death of his 
 intestate in Kansas. 1 Where the death is caused in one 
 jurisdiction and the action is brought in another juris- 
 diction, whose statutes authorize the action, it must be 
 shown, as those statutes have no extra-territorial force, 
 that there is a statute in the jurisdiction in which the 
 death was caused authorizing a recovery therefor, and 
 there is no presumption of the existence of such a 
 statute. 2 Under Lord Campbell's Act a settlement with 
 and a release of the railway by the person injured ex- 
 tinguishes the statutory right of action vested in his 
 widow. 3 So, also, where the person injured has con- 
 tracted with his employer that the benefit of the act 
 should not be claimed, it was held that his widow's 
 action was thereby barred. 4 
 
 1 Limekiller v. H. & St. J.R. R., 33 Kans. 83, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 184. 
 ■ Debivoise v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R., 98 N. Y. 377 ; S. R. & D. R. R. v, 
 Lacy, 43 Ga. 461. 
 s Read v. G. E. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 555. 
 4 Griffiths v. Earl of Dudley, 9 Q. B. D. 357.
 
 PARTIES TO THE ACTION. 411 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION. 
 
 I. The plaintiffs. 
 II. The defendants. 
 
 I. THE PLAINTIFFS. 
 
 Where the action is founded on a contract, any party or privy to that 
 contract who has been injured by its breach, may sue as plaintiff, and 
 where the action is founded on a tort, not causing the death of the 
 person injured, any one who has suffered a pecuniary loss directly 
 resulting from that tort may sue as plaintiff, and where the action is 
 founded on a tort causing death, the party entitled by virtue of the 
 statute conferring the right of action may sue as plaintiff. 
 
 354. At common law the person who has been phys- 
 ically injured by a tort, and has survived his injury, can 
 sue as plaintiff, and if the injuries to that person have 
 not been the immediate cause of his death, any othei 
 person who has suffered a pecuniary loss directly re- 
 sulting from that injury may sue to recover damages for 
 that loss ; thus, an infant may sue by his next friend 
 for his personal injuries, and his father may also sue for 
 the loss of his child's services ; a servant may sue for 
 his personal injuries, and his master may also sue 
 for his loss of his servant's services ; and a wife may 
 sue for her personal injuries, and her husband may also 
 sue for his loss of his wife's society and services. 1 Where 
 a municipality has been compelled to respond in dam- 
 ages to a person injured by reason of the neglect of a 
 
 1 As a general rule where the action is brought to recover in the right of a 
 wife for her personal injuries her husband must be joined Bfl a necessary party 
 plaintiff, but under the statutes of Illinois and [owa, an action to recover fur 
 injuries to the person of a wife must be brought in her name, without joining 
 her husband: C. B. & Q, R. R. v. Dickson, 67 111. 122; C. & N. W. Ry. v. 
 Button, 68 Id. 409 ; Tuttle v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 42 Iowa 518.
 
 412 PARTIES TO THE ACTION. 
 
 railway to keep in repair a highway which the railway 
 used as a part of its line, the municipality can recover 
 from the railway the amount of the damages so paid. 1 
 Of course, as hereinbefore stated, when the injury has 
 been done by the breach of a contract, one who was not 
 a party or privy to that contract cannot bring a suit 
 founded upon the contract. 
 
 II. THE DEFENDANTS. 
 
 The person or persons whose wrongful act or default was the cause of 
 injury to the plaintiff, and any other person or persons who are 
 legally responsible for the wrongful act or omission, may be made 
 defendants to the action, provided always that, where the action is 
 grounded upon a contract, both plaintiff and defendant are parties 
 or privies to the contract. 
 
 355. The individual who has, by his non-perform- 
 ance of duty, or breach of contract, caused the injury, 
 or any other person or persons, natural or corporate, 
 who may be legally responsible for the acts and defaults 
 of the wrongdoer, may be made the defendant, pro- 
 vided, of course, that where the action is grounded upon 
 a contract, the plaintiff is a party to the contract; thus, 
 a passenger who has been injured by a failure of any 
 of the means of transportation cannot recover for in- 
 juries caused thereby from the contractors who supplied 
 to the railway the particular article whose failure was 
 the cause of his injury, for there is no privity of con- 
 tract between the passenger and that contractor. 2 On 
 
 1 W. & A. R. R. v. Atlanta, Ga. , 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 233 ; 
 Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 657 ; District of Columbia v. B. & P. R. R., 4 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 179 ; Town of Hampden v. N. H. & N. R. R., 27 Conn. 158 ; 
 Woburn v. B. & L. R. R., 109 Mass. 283. 
 
 8 Tollitt v. Sherstone, 5 M. & W. 283 ; Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 Id. 109 ; 
 Longmeid v. Halliday, 6 Ex. 761. Langridge v. Levy, 2 M. & W. 519, 4 Id. 
 337 ; and George v. Skivington, L. R. 5 Ex. 1, are distinguishable because 
 there tbe defendants were held liable upon the ground of fraud and misrep- 
 resentation.
 
 JOINT TORT-FEASORS. 413 
 
 the same principle a person with whom a contract has 
 been made for the carriage of himself or of any other 
 person may sue for the damages done by the railway's 
 breach of that contract, but one who is no party to the 
 contract of carriage, however much he may have suf- 
 fered by the breach thereof, has no right of action for 
 that breach. 1 
 
 356. Where the State, in the exercise of its sover- 
 eignty, has taken possession of, and operates, a railway 
 line, it is, by virtue of its sovereignty, exempt from 
 liability to persons injured by the negligence of the 
 servants who are employed to operate the line; 2 but 
 the shares of the capital stock of the corporation being 
 as a legal entity distinct from the corporation, 3 the fact 
 that the State is the owner of all the shares of the 
 stock of a railway corporation will not exempt the cor- 
 poration from liability to suit for injuries caused by 
 negligence on its part. 4 
 
 357. Joint tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable; 
 thus, in Colegrove v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. & N. Y. & 
 H. R. R., 5 the plaintiff, while a passenger upon a train 
 of the first named corporation defendant, was injured 
 in a collision between that train and a train of the last 
 named defendant, and it was held that the two corpora- 
 tions as joint tort-feasors were jointly liable to him. 6 
 
 1 Alton v. Midland Ry., 9 C. B. N. S. 213, 115 E. C. L.; F. & A. St. P. K. 
 v. Stutler, 54 Penna. St. 37."). 
 
 2 McFarlane v. The Queen, 7 Can. S. C. 216; The Queen v. McLeod, 8 Id. 1, 
 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 301. 
 
 3 Regina v. Arnoud & Powell, 9 Q. B. 806, 58 E. C. L. ; Vao AHot v. The 
 Assessors, 3 Wall. 573. 
 
 4 Hutchinson v. W. & A. R. R., 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 634. 
 
 5 6 Duer382, 20N.Y. 492. 
 
 6 See also Cuddy v. Horn, 46 Mich. 596; Cooper v. E. T. Co., 76 N. Y. 110; 
 Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 646 ; W. ( St. L. A P. 
 Ry. v. Shacklet, 105 111. 364, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 106 ; Wyldo v. N. B. 
 R., 53N.Y. 156.
 
 414 JOINT TORT-FEASORS. 
 
 So where two or more persons or corporations jointly 
 operate a railway, they are jointly and severally liable 
 to persons injured in the course of the railway's opera- 
 tions, and they may be sued jointly or severally. 1 So 
 the railway and its servant, who, by his act of com- 
 mission, injures any one to whom the railway owes a 
 duty, are jointly liable for that injury. 
 
 1 Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 545 ; Bissell v. M. 
 S. & N. I. Ry., 22 Id. 258.
 
 EVIDENCE. 415 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS AGAINST RAILWAYS FOE INJUEIES TO 
 THE PEESON. 
 
 I. Admissibility of proof of declarations and admissions by agents and 
 servants of the railway. 
 II. Admissibility for the plaintiff of declarations of the person injured. 
 
 III. Admissibility for the railway of admissions and declarations of the 
 
 person injured. 
 
 IV. Admissibility of evidence as to changes in the construction or mode 
 
 of operation of the railway made subsequently to the happening 
 of the injury. 
 V. Inspection of the injuries of the person injured. 
 VI. Evidence as to the speed of trains. 
 VII. Evidence as to signals. 
 VIIL Admissibility of life tables in evidence. 
 IX. Evidence as to poverty of person injured, etc. 
 
 358. The admissibility of evidence in actions against 
 railways is, in general, determinable by the rules of 
 evidence applicable to the particular form of action, 
 whether it be trespass, case, or assumpsit. I shall, 
 therefore, notice only certain rules of evidence, whose 
 applicability and effects have been discussed in the 
 more recent cases. 
 
 I. ADMISSIBILITY OF PROOF OF DECLARATIONS AND 
 ADMISSIONS BY AGENTS AND SERVANTS OF THE 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 Such declarations and admissions are only admissible as pari of the 
 res yestoe when made contemporaneously ivith the happening <>f the 
 injury to the plaintiff. 
 
 359. Where the acts of an agent or servant will bind 
 the railway, there the representations, declarations, and
 
 416 DECLARATIONS. 
 
 admissions of such agent or servant respecting the 
 subject-matter will also bind the railway, if made at 
 the time of the injury to the j)laintiff, and constituting 
 part of the res gestce} But declarations of the agent 
 or servant of the railway, if made subsequently to the 
 time of the injury to the plaintiff, are not part of the 
 res gestce and are not admissible in evidence against the 
 railway. 2 Yet declarations of a servant are admissible 
 when proven to have been made in the course of duty, 
 as, for instance, a report by an engine-driver to a switch- 
 tender that he had run over a man, it being the engine- 
 driver's duty to report to the switch- tender, that the 
 latter might hold other trains until the obstruction was 
 removed, but declarations of the engine-driver of the 
 manner of killing and the identity of the person killed 
 are not admissible. 3 Declarations of an alleged servant 
 of the railway are not admissible against the railway to 
 
 1 Story on Agency, § 134 ; H. E. E. v. Coyle, 55 Penna. St. 396 ; Mullan v. 
 P. & S. M. S. Co., 78 Id. 25 ; McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399, 15 Am & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 291, 8 Id. 162; Casey v. N.Y. C. & H. E. E. E., 78 N.Y. 518; 
 Penna. Co. v. Eudel, 100 111. 603, 6 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 30. 
 
 2 V. Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. 529 ; M. & M. E. E. v. Finney, 10 Wise. 
 388 ; P., C. & St. L. E. E. v. Wright, 80 Ind. 182, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 628 ; Moore v. C, St. L. & N. O. E. E., 59 Miss. 243, 9 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 
 401 ; M. C. E. E. v. Coleman, 28 Mich. 440 ; Treadway v. S. C. & St. P. Ey., 
 40 Iowa 526; C. & N.W. Ey. v. Fillmore, 57 111. 265; Furst v. S. A. E. E., 
 72 N. Y. 542 ; P., C. & St. L. E. E. v. Theobald, 51 Ind. 246 ; Dietrich v. B. 
 & H. S. Ey., 58 Md. 347, 11 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 115; Verry v. B., C, E. 
 & M. Ey., 47 Iowa 549 ; Newsom v. G. E. E., 66 Ga. 57 ; E. T. V. & G. E. E. 
 v. Duggan, 51 Id. 212; Travis v. L. & N. E. E, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 231 ; Tanner 
 v. L. & N. E. E., 60 Ala. 621 ; McComb v. N. C. E. E., 70 N. C. 178 ; Adams 
 v. H. & St. J. E. E., 74 Mo. 553, 7 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 414 ; Luby v. H. E. 
 E. E., 17 N.Y. 131 ; Hamilton v. N. Y. C. E. R., 51 Id. 100; Whitaker v. E. 
 A. E. E., Id. 295 ; Marsh v. S. C. E. E., 56 Ga. 274 ; Patterson v. W., St. L. & 
 P. Ey., 54 Mich. 91, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 130; A. G. S. Ey. v. Hawk, 
 
 72 Ala. 121, 18 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 194; McDermott v. H. & St. J. Ey., 
 
 73 Mo. 516, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 85. 
 
 3 B. & O. E. E. v. State, to use of Allison, 62 Md. 479, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. 
 Cas. 83.
 
 DECLARATIONS. 417 
 
 prove that the person making the declaration was a 
 servant of the railway. 1 
 
 II. ADMISSIBILITY FOR THE PLAINTIFF OF PROOF OF 
 DECLARATIONS OF THE PERSON INJURED. 
 
 Such declarations are admissible or the plaintiff if part of the res 
 gestoz and made contemporaneously with the happening of the injury, 
 but they are not in any case admissible as " dying declarations," 
 and exclamations of the person injured, indicating pain and suffer- 
 ing, though made subsequently to the injury, are admissible in evi- 
 dence for the plaintiff. 
 
 360. It has been held that declarations of persons 
 injured, as to the cause of the injury, are admissible in 
 evidence for the plaintiff as part of the res gestce, if the 
 declarations were made at the time of the accident. 2 It 
 has also been held that declarations and expressions of 
 the injured person, indicating pain and suffering, are 
 admissible in evidence for the plaintiff as part of the 
 ■res gestce, although made at a time subsequent to the 
 happening of the injury; 3 and where the plaintiff sued 
 for an injury done to his leg, a piece of bone was 
 admitted in evidence with proof of the plaintiff's decla- 
 ration made subsequently to the injury, that it had just 
 come out of his leg. 4 But such declarations and excla- 
 mations, if made at a medical examination which was 
 undertaken for the purpose of obtaining testimony to 
 be used on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial, are not 
 admissible. 5 Declarations of the person injured, .is (<> 
 
 1 Lindsay v. C. R. R , 40 Ga. 447. 
 
 2 Entwistle v. Fergner, 60 Mo. 214; Bass v. C. & X. W, Ry., 12 Wise. 664 ; 
 Brownell v. P. R. R., 47 Mo. 240 ; Friedman v. R. K., 7 Phila. 208. 
 
 3 H.&T.C.R. R. r.Shafer, 54 Tex. 641, 6 Inn. & Eng. R. I:. Can. 421; 
 Avesoni). Lord Kiimard, 6 Eaal L88; Sfattesonv. N. V. C. !•'. R., :;"■ N. V. 
 487; Perkins v. C. R. R., 44 X. II. 223; Hagenlocker v. C. I. A l;. R. I;., 99 
 N.Y.I. 30. 
 
 * Pringle v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 01 In,va C,i:;, IS Am. .V Km-. R. R. Cas. 01. 
 
 5 G. R. & I. R. R. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537. 
 27
 
 418 DECLARATIONS. 
 
 fche cause of his injury, when made after the happening 
 of the injury, and constituting merely a narrative of a 
 past transaction, are not part of the res gestae, and are 
 not admissible in evidence for the plaintiff. 1 Despite 
 the authorities which have been cited, it may well be 
 doubted whether the declarations of the person injured, 
 if made subsequently to the injury, are, in any case, 
 properly admissible for the plaintiff, for they are not 
 admissions against interest, nor are they part of the res 
 cjestm, in the sense that they are contemporaneous 
 explanations of any act done on the part of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 361 Dying declarations are admissible only in 
 criminal prosecutions, 2 and, of course, are not admissi- 
 ble in civil actions against railways for injuries causing 
 death. 3 
 
 III. THE ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE FOR THE RAIL- 
 WAY OF THE PROOF OF ADMISSIONS AND DECLARA- 
 TIONS BY THE PERSON INJURED. 
 
 Such declarations, at whatever time made, are admissible in evidence 
 for the railway. 
 
 362. Declarations and admissions of the person in- 
 jured, at whatsoever time made, are admissible in evi- 
 dence for the railway, as admissions against interest, 
 and where the plaintiff is not the person injured, they 
 are binding upon the plaintiff by reason of his privity 
 with the person injured. 4 But the declarations of one 
 
 1 Waldele v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 95 N. Y. 275, 19 Am. & Eng. R, R. 
 Cas. 400 ; C, C. & 0. R. R. v. Mara, 26 Ohio St. 185 ; I. C. R. R. v. Sutton, 42 
 111. 438; Taylor v. G. T. R. R., 48 N. II. 304. 
 
 2 Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence 32. 
 
 ■ Marshall v. C. & G. E. R. R., 48 111. 475 ; Daily v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R., 32 
 Conn. 356 ; Waldele v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 26 Hun. (N. Y.) 69. 
 
 4 Stein v. G. A. Ry., 10 Phila. 440 ; Cooper v. C. R. R., 44 Iowa 134 ; sed. cf. 
 O. & M. R. R. v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371.
 
 OVERWORKED SERVANTS. 419 
 
 who is neither the person injured, nor the plaintiff, nor 
 the plaintiff's agent, are not admissible in evidence for 
 the railway ; thus, where a wife sues in her own right for 
 her personal injuries, the subsequent declarations of her 
 husband as to the cause of the injury are not admissible 
 in evidence against her ; l nor are the declarations of a 
 wife as to the cause of the injury admissible in evidence 
 as against her husband, the plaintiff. 2 
 
 The non-performance of a duty by a railway servant may be proved by 
 direct evidence of the fact, or indirectly by evidence that the railway 
 servant was, at the time of the injury, incapacitated by intoxication 
 or otherwise, but it cannot be proved by showing that the servants 
 of the railway are habitually overworked. 
 
 363. Evidence is admissible to prove that a railway 
 servant who was charged with the performance of a par- 
 ticular duty at a particular time, and whose non-perform- 
 ance of that duty was the cause of the injury for which 
 the plaintiff sues, did not perform that duty by reason of 
 his absence from his post, or because he was then inca- 
 pacitated by drunkenness, or otherwise; but evidence 
 is not admissible to prove that servants of the railway, 
 who are charged with the performance of such duties, 
 are so habitually overworked that they are not compe- 
 tent for the performance of their duties, for such evi- 
 dence is, at best, only a presumption founded upon a 
 presumption. 3 
 
 1 Keller v. S. C. & St. P. R. R., 27 Minn. 178. 
 
 2 Stillwell v. N. Y. C. R. R., 34 N. Y. 29. 
 
 8 P. C. P. Ry. v. Henrice, 92 Penna. St. 431, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 544.
 
 420 COLLATERAL OCCURRENCES. 
 
 IV. ADMISSIBILITY OF PROOF OF COLLATERAL OCCUR- 
 RENCES. 
 
 "The occurrence of facts similar to, but not connected with, the fact in 
 issue by the relation of cause and effect, is not admissible in evidence." 
 
 364. The general rule is that quoted in the head 
 note, from Mr. Justice Stephen; 1 thus, the charge of 
 negligence against the railway being based on the main- 
 tenance of an imperfect switch and the failure to repair 
 a broken rail, evidence of other defects at other points 
 on the line is not admissible. 2 So, in an action for in- 
 juries to a passenger evidence is not admissible of 
 another accident at the same place under similar cir- 
 cumstances/' There are, however, some cases which 
 maintain a different doctrine ; thus, the question at 
 issue being whether signals were given at a particular 
 crossing by a particular train, it has been held that evi- 
 dence is admissible to show that such signals were not 
 given by that train at another crossing. 4 It has also 
 been held that evidence is admissible to show that en- 
 gines of the defendant habitually pass a certain crossing 
 at great speed, as tending to prove that on a particular 
 occasion another engine did pass the crossing at great 
 speed. 5 The negligence charged upon the railway being 
 a failure to maintain its line in a safe condition for the 
 transportation of passengers, evidence has been held to 
 be admissible of recent and frequent derailments of its 
 trains. 6 In such a case, evidence has also been held to 
 
 1 Digest of Evidence, cap. Ill, p. 15. 
 
 2 Morse v. M. & St. L. Ry., 30 Minn. 465, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168; 
 P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 462, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 457 ; 
 Reed v. N. Y. C. E. R,, 45 N. Y. 574. 
 
 3 Davis v. O. & C. R. R., 8 Oregon 172 ; O, B. & Q. R. R. v. Lee, 60 111. 501. 
 * Bower v. C, M. & St. P. It. 11., 61 Wise. 457, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas, 
 
 301. 
 
 > Bhaber v. St. P., M. & M. R. R., 28 Minn. 103, 2 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 185. 
 6 M. & M. R. R. v. Ashcroft, 48 Ala. 15, 49 Id, 305.
 
 SIMILAR ACCIDENTS. 421 
 
 be admissible as to the unsafe condition of the line at 
 points other than that where the injury happened. 1 
 The doctrine of those cases is more than questionable. 
 The existence of negligence upon the part of the railway 
 at a different place, or at the same place upon another 
 occasion, is not necessarily inconsistent with the exercise 
 of due care on the part of the railway at the time and 
 place of the injury, and the introduction of proof of 
 such collateral occurrences necessarily raises for deter- 
 mination by the jury distinct issues, whose consideration 
 has an obvious tendency to divert their minds from the 
 issues raised by the pleadings in the cause. Of course, 
 this rule does not exclude the evidence of occurrences, 
 which are not collateral to the plaintiff's injury ; thus, 
 where the plaintiff sues for injuries resulting from the 
 fright of a horse caused by some particular noise, evi- 
 dence that other horses were frightened at that time by 
 the same noise is admissible, for it tends to prove the 
 dangerous character of the noise. 2 So, where the case 
 turns on the sufficiency or insufficiency of a particular 
 appliance, such as a switch, evidence is admissible of 
 other accidents caused by switches similarly constructed, 
 because it tends to prove the insufficiency of the par- 
 ticular form of switch. 3 
 
 Proof as to changes in the construction or mode of operation of the 
 railway, made subsequently to the happening of the injury to the 
 plaintiff, is not admissible. 
 
 365. Evidence is not admissible to prove thai after 
 an accident, a railway made changes in the construction 
 of its line, or adopted a different mode of operation, as, 
 
 1 Allison v. V, A X. W. Ry., 42 [owa 27 I ; Holyoke v. ' ■. T. K. K., 48 N. B. 
 541; Reed v. N. Y. C. R. R., 56 Barb. 493. 
 
 2 Gordon v B. & M. K. R, 58 X. II. 396. 
 
 3 Morse v. M. & St. L. Ry., 'M Minn. 465, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. I !u. 168.
 
 422 SUBSEQUENT CHANGES. 
 
 substituting new for old planks at a level crossing, 1 or 
 substituting a new bridge for the old bridge, the prox- 
 imity of whose sides to the line was the cause of injury 
 to the plaintiff', 2 or changing the character of a switch, 3 
 or reconstructing an embankment after a storm of un- 
 precedented violence; 4 or putting in new ties after an 
 accident. 5 On the other hand, it has been held that 
 evidence is admissible to show that after an accident at 
 a crossing certain precautions were taken to prevent 
 similar accidents; 6 or that where the injury to the 
 plaintiff had resulted from the removal of a plank at a 
 crossing, the railway had, after the happening of the 
 injury, replaced the plank in position; 7 or that where 
 the injury was caused by the proximity of a station plat- 
 form to a main line track, the railway, after the injury 
 to the plaintiff, relocated its platform; 8 or that where 
 the cause of injury to the plaintiff was the proximity of 
 a main line track to a coal scales, the railway after the 
 injury to the plaintiff had changed their relative loca- 
 tion. 9 On principle, it is not easy to see why such evi- 
 dence should be regarded as admissible. A change in 
 a mode of operating the line, or a substitution of a 
 different appliance at a particular point, is not necessarily 
 an admission that the discarded mode of operation or 
 appliance was dangerously defective, for, in railway 
 practice, such changes are frequently made from motives 
 
 1 Payne v. T. & B. R. R., 9 Hun (N. Y.) 526. 
 
 2 Dale v. D., L. & W. 11. R., 73 N. Y. 468. 
 
 3 Salter v. D. & II. C. Co., 3 Hun (N. Y.J 338 ; Morse v. M. & St. L. Ry., 30 
 Minn. 465, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 168. 
 
 4 Ely v. St. L , K. C. & N. Ry., 77 Mo. 34, 16 Am. & Eng.' R. R. Cas. 342. 
 8 Reed v. N. Y. C. R. R., 45 N. Y. 574. 
 
 6 Shaber v. St. P., M. & M. Ry., 28 Minn. 103. 2 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 185 ; 
 O'Leary v. Mankato, 21 Minn 65; Phelps v. Mankato, 23 Minn. 276. 
 
 7 Kelly v. S. M. R. R., 28 Minn. 98, 6 Am & Eng, R. R. Cas. 264. 
 
 8 P. R. R. v. Henderson, 51 Penna. St. 315. 
 
 9 W. C & P. R. R. v. McElwee, 67 Penna. St. 311 ; see also McKee v. Bid- 
 well, 74 Id. 218.
 
 PROOF OF SUBORNATION. 423 
 
 of economy, or from the desire of obtaining greater 
 efficiency without increased cost. The introduction of 
 such evidence is also open to the objection, that it 
 raises distinct and independent issues for the consider- 
 ation of the jury. 
 
 Proof is admissible of an attempt to suborn false testimony , as constitut- 
 ing an admission that the case of the party so attempting is not well 
 founded. 
 
 366. Evidence is admissible to prove that the plaintiff, 
 or the defendant, or the agent of either of them, endea- 
 voured to suborn false testimony to be adduced in the 
 cause ; x and, in Moriarity v. L. C. & D. Ry., Cockburn, 
 
 C. J., states, as the reason of this rule, that " the conduct 
 of a party to a cause may be of the highest importance 
 in determining whether the cause of action in which he 
 is plaintiff, or the ground of defence if he is defendant, 
 is honest and just ; just as it is evidence against a pris- 
 oner that he has said one thing at one time and another 
 at another, as showing that the recourse to falsehood 
 tends fairly to an inference of guilt. Anything from 
 which such an inference can be drawn is cogent and 
 important evidence with a view to the issue. So, if you 
 can show that a plaintiff has been suborning false testi- 
 mony, and has endeavoured to have recourse to perjury, 
 it is strong evidence that he knew perfectly well his 
 cause was an unrighteous one. I do not Bay that it is 
 conclusive. I fully agree that it should be pul to I In- 
 jury, with the intimation that it docs ool always follow 
 because a man, not sure he shall be able to succeed by 
 righteous means, has recourse to means of a different 
 character, that that which he desires, namely, the gain- 
 
 1 Annesley v. Earl of Anglesey 17 How. St. Tr. 1138 ; Moriarity 9. I 
 
 D. Ry., L. R. 5 Q. B. 314 ; C. C. Ry. v. McMahon, LOS IN. 486,8 km. & 
 
 R. E. Cas. G8; March v. S. C. K. B., 66 (la. 274.
 
 424 INSPECTION OF INJURIES. 
 
 ing of the victory, is not his due, or that he has not 
 good ground for believing that justice entitles him to it. 
 It does not necessarily follow that he has not a good 
 cause of action, any more than a prisoner's making a 
 false statement to increase his appearance of innocence 
 is necessarily a proof of his guilt; but it is always evi- 
 dence which ous;ht to be submitted to the tribunal 
 which has to judge of the facts." 
 
 V. INSPECTION OF THE INJURIES OF THE PERSON INJURED. 
 
 The person injured is entitled to exhibit his personal injuries to the 
 jury, and the court, in its discretion, may direct the person injured 
 to submit to a physical examination by medical men appointed by 
 the court. 
 
 367. The person injured may exhibit his injuries to 
 the jury. 1 Where, in its opinion, the interests of justice 
 justify it, the Court may require the injured person to 
 submit to an examination by competent and disinter- 
 ested experts on behalf of the railway. 2 So also the 
 Court may, in its discretion, direct the person injured 
 to perform, in the presence of the jury, a physical act 
 which will necessarily test the nature and character of 
 his physical injuries. 3 
 
 VI. SPEED OF TRAINS. 
 
 Any witness who saw the train in motion at the place of the injury 
 may testify as to its speed, hit unless he fixes its speed by some reli- 
 able data, his testimony will be of little weight. 
 
 3G8. Any person who saw a train in motion at any 
 time, and at any place, is a competent witness to testify 
 
 1 Mulhade v. B. C. R. R., 30 N. Y. 370. 
 
 2 Walsh v. Sayre, 52 How. Pr. 334 ; Schroeder v. C, R. I. & P. Ry., 47 Iowa 
 37.". ; A., T. & 8. F. Ry. v. Thul, 29 Kan. 466, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 378 ; 
 S. C. & P. Ry. v. Finlayson, 16 Neb. 578, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 68; 
 While i. M. C. R. R., 61 Wise. 536, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 213; Loyd v. 
 H. & St. J. R. R., 53 Mo. 509. 
 
 3 Hatfield v. St. P. & D. Ry., 33 Minn. 130, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 292.
 
 PROOF OF SPEED. 425 
 
 as to the speed of that train at that time and place ; x 
 but unless the witness is experienced in observing the 
 movements of trains, and unless he observes the time 
 occupied by the movement of the train over a definite 
 space, his testimony will not furnish a reliable basis for 
 a determination of the actual rate of speed of the train. 
 As Lyon, J., said in Hoppe v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. : 2 " the 
 estimate of a witness, especially of a non-expert, of the 
 rate of speed of a moving railway train is very unsatis- 
 factory proof, and should be received with great caution. 
 If the res gestce render it impossible, or even highly im- 
 probable, that the estimate can be, or is, correct, it should 
 be rejected." In Tully v. F. R. R., 3 Colburn, J., said : 
 "the only evidence as to the rate of speed of the train was 
 the testimony of one witness, who saw the train stop, 
 that it stopped forty or fifty yards from the crossing ; 
 and of another that he noticed that the train, after it 
 had stopped, was about three hundred yards from the 
 place of the accident. We are of the opinion that no 
 inference could be drawn from this evidence, that the 
 train passed the crossing at an unreasonable rate of 
 speed. How soon the train would have stopped de- 
 pended upon the state of the track and the weight of the 
 train, upon the kind of brakes used, whether to be up- 
 plied by the engineer or by men along the train, and, ir 
 the latter, how quickly the men responded to the signal, 
 and upon how promptly after the accident the engineer 
 
 applied the brakes, or gave the signal, and how e 
 
 he discovered the accident, and upon these points there 
 was no evidence whatever. Neither was there any 
 evidence of how soon a given train, al a given rate of 
 
 1 D. & M. R. R. v. Van Bteinbnrg, 17 Mich. 99; <'., B. & Q. EL Et. ■ John- 
 son, 103 111. r >12, 8 Am. & Eng. B. B. Ca& 226. 
 
 2 61 Wise. 357, L9 Am. & Eng. B. B. Cas. 74. 
 
 8 134 Mass. 499, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. (;>!.».
 
 426 OMISSION OF SIGNALS. 
 
 speed, could be stopped, under any given circumstances, 
 and this cannot be considered a matter of common 
 knowledge." On the other hand, in Penna. Coal Co. 
 v. Conlan, 1 witnesses were permitted to testify as to the 
 speed of a train without reference to any standard of 
 speed, and testimony was also admitted to show the dis- 
 tance run by the train after striking a person, without 
 showing any of the circumstances regarded as material 
 in the Tully case. In Van Horn v. B. C. K. & N. Ey., 2 
 non-expert witnesses were allowed to testify " that they 
 judged from the sound of the train that at the time of 
 the accident it was running very rapidly, and more 
 than six miles an hour, which it appears was the high- 
 est speed allowed by ordinance of the city ;" and 
 such testimony was held sufficient to justify a finding 
 of negligence against the railway. One case 3 goes so far 
 as to hold that only experts can testify as to the time 
 and distance within which a moving train can be 
 brought to a stop. In G. R. & I. R. R. v. Huntley, 4 it 
 is held that evidence as to the speed of a train should 
 show the actual rate by reference to some standard of 
 rapidity, and should show that that rate was dangerous 
 under the circumstances, and that the mere opinion of • 
 a passenger is not satisfactory proof of the speed of a 
 train. 
 
 VII. SIGNALS. 
 
 Tlie credibility and effect of testimony, that signals were or were not 
 given, is for the jury ; but they should be directed by the judge as to 
 the relative weight of the testimony. 
 
 369. The testimony of witnesses that signals were 
 given is of higher grade than testimony that they were 
 
 1 101 111. 93, G Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 243. 
 
 » 59 Iowa 33, 7 Am. & Eng. R, E. Cas. 591. 
 
 3 M., A. & B. Ry. v. Stewart, 30 Kans. 226, 13 Am. & Eng R. R. Cas. 503. 
 
 * 38 Mich. 539.
 
 OMISSION OF SIGNALS. 427 
 
 not given, and the testimony of witnesses who were 
 listening for the signals is of higher grade than the 
 testimony of witnesses who were not listening for them, 
 but the credibility and effect of all such testimony is 
 for the jury; 1 thus, in Greany v. L. I. R. E,., 2 where 
 the railway was held liable to a traveller on the high- 
 way, who was injured, at a grade crossing in a village 
 close to the railway station, by a train which was run- 
 ning at high speed, passengers on the train having tes- 
 tified that the crossing signals were not given, Dan- 
 forth, J., said, as to the evidence that the signals were 
 omitted : " it is apparent that the best evidence of the 
 fact in dispute would be the testimony of those persons 
 who, on the particular occasion in question, had the 
 custody or management of the bell or whistle. They 
 were, however, in the employ of the defendant, them- 
 selves interested in proving that the proper signals were 
 given by those instruments, and the law does not require 
 an adverse party to put his case in the hands of persons 
 having such relations to the transaction. Besides those 
 persons, all others must give evidence secondary in 
 character. One person might be watching the bell, 
 looking at it, or listening for its sound ; the value of 
 his testimony would depend upon his nearness to the 
 machine, the accuracy of his sense of sight or hearing, 
 the existence, or force, or direction of the wind, and 
 other causes. Another person might be neither look Lng 
 nor listening, and yet his position be such, and the cir- 
 
 1 D., W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, 3 App. Caa. 1155 ; Longenecker P.P. B K.. 
 105 Penna. St. 328 ; C, B. & Q. R. E. v. Slumps, 55 III. 367 ; C. & A. K. B. v. 
 Gretzner, 40 Id. 74; C.,B.& Q. R. R. ■. Dickson, 88 I.I. 431 ; C. & A. B K. ,-. 
 Robinson, 106 Id. 142, 19 Am. & Eng. B. B. Caa. 396; 0., B. & Q. B 
 Dougherty, 110 Id. 521; Culhane v. N. Y. C. & H. B B B, 80 N.Y. 133; 
 Klanowski v. G. T. Ry, Mich. , 21 Am. A Eng. B B Caa. 648; Bhoade. 
 v. C.&G.T. Ry, Mich. , 21 Am.<& Eng. B B. Caa 659; Buntn 
 
 P. R. R, 14 Ney. 351, 6 ^Vm. & Eng. R. B. I !aa. 282. 
 
 2 101 N.Y. 419.
 
 428 OMISSION OF SIGNALS. 
 
 cumstances about him so favourable, that his testimony 
 would be of equal or greater persuasive power than 
 that of the other. A jury must ascertain. An appel- 
 late court cannot say that the testimony of either should 
 be rejected. Nor should a trial judge be required to 
 determine its weight, or the fact which it did or did not 
 ascertain, if it has any legal effect. No error, there- 
 fore, was committed in allowing the witnesses, K., T., 
 and R., to testify. They were passengers upon the train 
 causing the injury, and were in such position that it 
 would not have been impossible for them to have heard 
 the signal if it had been given." But in Ellis v. G. W. 
 By., 1 it was held in the Court of Exchequer Chamber 
 (Cockburn, C. J., dissenting), that testimony for the 
 plaintiff that the plaintiff did not see the lights of an 
 approaching train, nor hear its signals, is equally 
 consistent with two different states of facts, viz. : that 
 the train was not lit and the signals were not given, or 
 that the train having been lit and the signals having 
 been given, the witness failed to observe either the 
 lights or the signals ; and that for that reason the tes- 
 timony proves nothing, and makes no case to go to the 
 jury. The same view is expressed in Bohan v. M., C. 
 S. & W. By., 2 in which case Lyon, J., said, with great 
 force : " the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, that 
 they did not hear the bell ring, or did not see the 
 lighted lantern at the head of the gravel cars, is purely 
 negative, and its negative character is intensified by the 
 fact, which is made perfectly obvious by their testimony, 
 that they did not look attentively, but only casually, at 
 the approaching train, and the attention of none of 
 them was directed to the presence or absence of such 
 warnings. Upon this record the credibility of the de- 
 
 1 L. K. 9 C. P. 551. 
 
 a Gl Wise. 391, 19 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 276.
 
 OMISSION OF SIGNALS. 429 
 
 fendant's witnesses, who testified positively to the ring- 
 ing of the bell and the presence of the brakeman on 
 the gravel car with a lighted lantern, stands unim- 
 peached. * * * The negative testimony of plaintiff and 
 his witnesses, while it has some bearing upon the ques- 
 tion of the warnings, amounts to little more than, so to 
 speak, a mere scintilla of evidence, and did not justify 
 the jury in their disregard of all the positive and other- 
 wise unimpeached testimony that the warnings were 
 given." In Tully v. F. R. R., 1 Colburn, J., said : " the 
 only evidence upon the subject of the ringing of the 
 bell or sounding of the whistle came from one witness, 
 and was as follows : ' I thought I heard the sound of 
 the train coming, and it sounded to me like the puffing 
 of the engine, and about the bell ringing I cannot say 
 whether I heard it or not. I disremember, I was so 
 excited at the time.' And in answer to the question, 
 ' Did you hear any whistle ?' he said, ' I don't remem- 
 ber.' This was all the evidence, and we are of opinion 
 that it would not warrant the jury in finding that the 
 bell was not rung, or that the steam whistle was not 
 sounded. If it is urged that, if the bell had been rung 
 or the whistle sounded, the witness would have remem- 
 bered it, it may be urged, with about the same force, 
 that, if the bell had not been rung nor the whistle 
 sounded, the witness would, under the circumstances, 
 have noticed the omission and remembered it. No 
 legitimate inference can be drawn from the testimony 
 one way or the other, and the attempt to draw an in- 
 ference could only end in a mere conjecture." 
 
 370. The testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses 
 in such cases is, however honest and truthful, not re- 
 liable. The excitement and shock of the accident ne- 
 
 1 134 Mass. 499, 14 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 682.
 
 430 OMISSION OF SIGNALS. 
 
 cessarily affect the accuracy of the plaintiff's recollection 
 as to the circumstances immediately preceding the acci- 
 dent. The plaintiff and those who are in his immediate 
 company at the time of the injury always believe that 
 signals of the train's approach were not given, because 
 they did not hear those signals, for if they had heard 
 them they would not have attempted to cross the line, 
 and they assume that, which the experience of life con- 
 tradicts, that if the signals had been given they must 
 have heard them. The testimony of disinterested by- 
 standers is equally unreliable, whether they testify that 
 the signals were or were not given, unless it be shown 
 that for some particular reason their attention was 
 directed to the approach of the train and to the sound- 
 ing or non-sounding of its signals, and this remark ap- 
 plies with the greater force to people who live near a 
 railway line, or whose calling comjiels them to pass their 
 time in proximity thereto, for such people become so 
 accustomed to the noises incident to railway operations 
 that any one sounding of the whistle or ringing of the 
 bell makes no impression upon them. At the best, the 
 testimony for the plaintiff being negative is not of equal 
 value with positive testimony that the signals were 
 given. The testimony of the engine-driver and fireman 
 that the signals were given is of greater value. The 
 railway servants who hold those responsible positions 
 are generally men of intelligence. They realize thor- 
 oughly the dangers necessarily incident to railway 
 operations. They know that their duty requires them 
 to give such signals, and that their own lives and the 
 lives of the train hands and passengers as well as the 
 lives of those who may cross the line may be put in 
 peril if a collision result from their non-performance of 
 duty in that respect, and that the disregard of that 
 duty is an unpardonable offence against discipline, and
 
 LIFE TABLES. 431 
 
 as such, a cause of dismissal from the service. There 
 are, therefore, operating against the engine-driver's and 
 fireman's neglect to give the necessary signals some of 
 the strongest forces that v can control human action, 
 namely, the habits formed by discipline, professional 
 ambition, a sense of duty, and the love of life. The 
 reasonable doctrine is, as stated in section 369, that it is 
 for the jury to weigh the evidence, pro and con, as to 
 the giving of signals in such cases, but it is certainly 
 the duty of the judge to put before the jury those con- 
 siderations which determine the value of the conflicting 
 evidence on one side and the other, in order that a just 
 result may be reached. It is, however, held in Illinois, 
 that it being the province of the jury to determine for 
 themselves the credibility and weight of conflicting 
 evidence, it is not the duty of the court to direct the 
 jury what evidence is entitled to greater consideration 
 on their part. 1 
 
 VIII. ADMISSIBILITY OF LIFE TABLES. 
 
 Approved life tables are admissible in evidence to show, in case oj 
 death, the decedent's expectancy of life. 
 
 371. The Carlisle or other approved tables are ad- 
 missible in evidence to show the injured person's expec- 
 tancy of life. 2 In Rowley v. L. & N. W. Ry., the 
 Carlisle tables were referred to by a witness Who stated 
 
 1 Rockwood v. Poundstone, 38 111. 200; L. N. A. * C. Ry. v. Shirrs, 108 Id. 
 617, 19 Am. & Eng. R. It. Cas. 387 ; C. & A. It. R. v. Robinson, 106 111. L42, 
 19 Am. & Eng. It. R. Cas. 396. 
 
 > Rowley v. L. & N. W. Ry., L. R. 8 Ex. 221 ; McDonald v. < . A- V W 
 26 Iowa 124; Schemer v. M. & St. J, Ry, 32 Minn. 126, 618, L9 km. ■ 
 R.R.Cas.173; Simonson v. C, R. I. & V. Ry, 48 [owa 19; K. P. Ry . t, 
 
 Lundin, 3 Colo. 94; D. S. P. & P. Ry. ''• W Iward, 4 Id. 1 ; Banter v. V ^ . 
 
 C & II. R. R. R, 66 N. Y. 60; C R. R. v. Richarda, 62 I to. 806 ; I tonald on 
 v .M.&M.R.R,18Iowa280; L. C. & L. R. R. v. Mahony,? Bn b(Kj ) 
 235; B., C, K. & W . R. R. v. Coates, 62 Iowa 487, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. I B , 
 265.'
 
 432 TOVEKTY OF PERSON INJURED. 
 
 that he was an "accountant," and had had personal 
 experience as to the mode in which life insurance busi- 
 ness was conducted, and he then gave evidence as to the 
 expectancy of life which was material in that case. It 
 was held in the Exchequer Chamber that the evidence 
 was properly admitted, Blackburn, J., saying: "We 
 think the average and probable duration of a life of that 
 asfe was material, and we do not see how that could be 
 better shown than by proving the practice of life insur- 
 ance companies, who learn it by experience. It was 
 objected that the witness was not an actuary, but only 
 an accountant, but as he gave evidence that he was ex- 
 perienced in the business of life insurance, we think his 
 evidence was admissible, though subject to remark on 
 its weight." Brett, J., however, doubted the compe- 
 tency of the witness upon the ground that he was not an 
 actuary. In Donaldson v. M. & M. B. By., 1 and in Schef- 
 fler v. M. & St. L. By.. 2 it is held that the tables are 
 not to be proved by witnesses, but are to be judicially 
 taken notice of by the court. 
 
 IX. PROOF AS TO POVERTY OF THE PERSON INJURED. 
 
 Proof is not admissible of the poverty of the pterson injured, or killed, 
 or of the number of individuals dependent on him for support. 
 
 372. Proof of the number of the family dependent 
 upon the person injured, or of his or their poverty, is 
 not admissible, for such testimony would obviously tend 
 to prejudice the jury and to divert their minds from 
 the real issues in the cause. 3 
 
 1 18 Iowa 280. 
 
 a 32 Minn. 125, 518, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173. 
 
 3 Penna. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 225 ; C. B. A 
 Q. R. R. v. Johnson, 103 111. 512, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 225 ; M. P. By. v. 
 Lyde, 57 Tex. 505, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 188.
 
 THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 433 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE BURDEN OF PEOOF. 
 
 I. The burden of proving negligence. 
 II. The burden of proving contributory negligence. 
 
 I. THE BURDEN OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 The burden is upon the plaintiff of showing affirmatively negligence 
 upon the part of the railway. 
 
 373. The general rule as to the burden of proof can 
 best be stated in the words of Mr. Justice Stephen, 1 as 
 follows : " whoever desires any court to give judgment 
 as to any legal right or liability which depends on the 
 existence or non-existence of facts which he asserts or 
 denies to exist, must prove that those facts do or do not 
 exist. The burden of proof in any action lies when 
 the action begins on that party against whom the judg- 
 ment of the court would be given if no evidence at all 
 were produced on either side, regard being had to any 
 presumption which might appear upon the pleadings. 
 As the action proceeds, the burden of proof may be 
 shifted from the party on whom it rested at first by his 
 proving facts which raise a presumption in his favour." 
 Under this general rule the plaintiff in actions tore- 
 cover for injuries resulting from negligence must show 
 affirmatively the duty of the defendant under I lie cir- 
 cumstances and the defendant's non-performance of 
 
 1 Digest of the Law of Evidence, art. 93, 96. 
 28
 
 434 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 that duty j 1 for, as Willes, J., said in Daniel v. M. Ry. : 2 
 " it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish by evidence 
 circumstances from which it may fairly be inferred that 
 there is reasonable probability that the accident resulted 
 from the want of some precaution which the defendants 
 might and ought to have resorted to ; and I go further, 
 and say that the plaintiff should also show with reason- 
 able certainty what particular precaution should have 
 been taken." This dictum is cited with approval in 
 Hayes v. M. C. R. R., 3 and in P., W. & B. R. R. v. 
 Stebbing. 4 When the evidence fails to establish the 
 defendant's duty and its non-performance, that is, when 
 the evidence is equally consistent with the existence or 
 non-existence of negligence, the judge ought not to 
 permit the cause to go to the jury. 5 So where in an 
 
 1 C. & N.W. Ey. v. Smith, 46 Mich. 504; Brown v. C. & B. St. Ey., 49 Id. 
 153; Henry v. L. S. & M. S. Ey., Id. 495; Mitchell v. C. & G. T. Ey., 51 Id. 
 236 ; C, St. L. & N. O. E. E. v. Trotter, 61 Miss. 417 ; Parrott v. Wells, 15 
 Wall. 524 ; P. & E. E. E. v. Heil, 5 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 91 ; Clark 
 v. P. & E. E. E, Id. 119 ; P. & E. E. E. v. Hummell, 44 Penna. St. 375 ; P. & 
 E. E. E. r. Spearen, 47 Id. 300; Holbrook v. U. & S. E. E, 12 N. Y. 236; 
 Curtis v. E. & S. E. E., 18 Id. 524; P.,W. & B. E E. v. Stebbing, 62 Md. 
 504, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 36 ; C, C. & I. C. Ey. v. Troesch, 68 111. 545 ; 
 Eobinson v. F. & W. E. E., 7 Gray (Mass.) 92. 
 
 2 L. E. 3 C. P. 216, 222. 3 111 U. S. 228. 
 4 62 Md. 504, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 36. 
 
 8 Cotton fl.Wood; 8 C. B. N. S. 568, 98 E. C. L.; Hammack v. White, 11 C. 
 J3. N. S. 588, 103 E. C. L. ; Toomey v. L., B. & S. C. Ey., 3 C. B. N. S. 146, 91 
 E C. L. ; Gallagher v. Piper, 16 C. B. N. S. 692, 111 E. C. L. ; Welfare v. L. & 
 
 B. Ey., L. E. 4 Q. B. 693 ; Manzoni v. Douglass, 6 Q. B. D. 145 ; Allyn v. B- 
 & A. E. E., 105 Mass. 77 ; Lane v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 177 ; Corcoran v. B. & 
 A. Ey., 133 Mass. 507 ; B., C, E. & N. Ey. v. Dowell, 62 Iowa 629 ; Carter v. 
 
 C. & G. Ey., 19 S. C. 20 ; B. & O. E. E. v. The State, to use of Allison, 62 Md. 
 479, 19 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 83 ; Ford v. C. I. E. E, Iowa , 17 Am. 
 & Eng. E. E. Cas. 599 ; C. & A. E. E. v. Mock, 88 111. 87 ; Cordell v. N. Y. C. 
 & H. E. E. E, 75 N. Y. 330 ; Warner v. E. E. E, 44 Id. 465 ; T., W. & W. 
 Ey. v. Branagan, 75 Ind. 490, 5 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 630; Willoughby v. C 
 & N.W. Ey., 37 Iowa 432; c/. Allen v. Willard, 57 Penna. St. 347 ; Simpson 
 v. L. G. Omnibus Co., L. E. 8 C. P. 390 ; Mitchell v. Alestree, 1 Ventr. 295. 
 W. P. P. Ey. v. Mulhair, 6 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 508, is not con- 
 «istent with the authorities.
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 435 
 
 action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have 
 been caused by a railway's negligence, if it appears 
 that the injuries were occasioned by either one of two 
 causes, for one of which the railway is responsible, but 
 not for the other, the plaintiff cannot recover, for he 
 must show affirmatively that the causa causans of his 
 injury was negligence on the part of the railway, thus in 
 Searles v. M. Ry., 1 the plaintiff's injuries resulted 
 from the fall of a burning cinder from an engine on an 
 elevated railway upon the plaintiff, who was on the 
 street below, but the proof failed to show whether the 
 cinder came from the smoke stack, which was in good 
 order and guarded by a spark arrester, or from the 
 fire box, which was not shown to be out of repair, and 
 the court, therefore, entered judgment for the railway. 
 It is not necessary that the party on whom the burden 
 of proof rests should establish a case free from any 
 doubt, and it is sufficient to justify a verdict for him 
 that the evidence preponderates in his favour, and that 
 the jury would not act unreasonably in finding a verdict 
 for him. 2 
 
 II. THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLI- 
 
 • GENCE. 
 
 It is held in some jurisdictions that the burden is also upon the plain- 
 tiff of showing affirmatively that the person injured was not con- 
 tributarily negligent, but the general rule seems to be that, if the 
 plaintiff's case has shown the railway to have been negligent, and 
 the railway relies upon contributory negligence as a defence, the 
 burden is on the railway oj proving that contributory negligence. 
 
 374. While all of the authorities agree that the 
 burden is upon the plaintiff of showing thai the de- 
 
 »101N.Y. 661. _ „ _ _ _ 
 
 * Johnson v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 25 Hun 261 ; N. Y, L. E. & W. R. R. ft 
 
 Seybolt, 95 N. Y. 562.
 
 436 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 I 
 
 fendant was negligent, or, in other words, that the id 
 jury resulted prima facie from the negligence of the 
 defendant, it is nevertheless held in some jurisdictions 
 that the burden is on the plaintiff of showing affirm- 
 atively that the person injured°was without fault, but 
 that that may be shown, either by direct evidence or 
 by proof of circumstances reasonably establishing that 
 the injury may have been occasioned without contribu- 
 tory negligence upon the part of the person injured. 1 
 Other authorities hold that if the j>laintiff's case has 
 shown that under the circumstances the defendant owed 
 him a duty, and that that duty has not been performed, 
 and that the injury has resulted therefrom, the obliga- 
 tion is then upon the defendant to prove plaintiff's con- 
 tributory negligence, if he relies upon that contributory 
 negligence as a defence to the action. 2 So far as re- 
 
 1 Per Brett, M. R., in Davey v. L. & S. W. Ry., 12 Q. B. D. 71 ; Murphy v. 
 Deane, 101 Mass. 466; Mayo v. B. & M. R. R., 104 Id. 137 ; Hinckley v. C. C. 
 R. R., 120 Id. 262; Tolman v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R., 98 N. Y. 198 ; Lee v. Troy 
 Co., Id. 115 ; Warren v. F. R. R., 8 Allen 227 ; Gleason v. Bremen, 50 Me. 
 222; State v. G. T. Ry., 58 Id. 176 ; State v. M. C. R. R., 76 Id. 357, 19 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 313 ; Pzolla v. M. C. R. R., 54 Mich. 273, 19 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 334; Murphy v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 45 Iowa 661 ; Starry v. D. & S. 
 W. R. R., 51 Id. 419 ; Raymond v. B., C, R. & N. Ry., 65 Iowa 152, 18 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 217, reversing s. c, 13 Id. 6 ; Behrens v. K. P. Ry., 5 Col. 
 400, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 184 ; Penna. Co. v. Galentine, 77 Ind. 320, 7 
 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 517 ; P., C. & St. L. R. R. v. Noel, 77 Ind. 110, 7 Am. 
 & Eng. R. R. Cas. 524 ; T., W. & W. Ry. v. Branagan, 75 Ind. 490, 5 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 630; Hawes v. B., C, R. & N. R. R., 64 Iowa 315, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 220 ; L., N., A. & C. Ry. v. Shanks, 94 Ind. 598, 19 Am. & 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 28. 
 
 2 D., W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155 ; W. & G. Ry. v. Gladmon, 
 15 Wall. 401 ; L. & St. L. R. R. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ; Oldfield v. N. Y. & H. 
 R. R., 14 N. Y. 310 ; Johnson v. H. R. R. R., 20 Id. 65 ; Button v. H. R. R. R., 
 18 Id. 248 ; Wilds v. H. R. R. R., 24 Id. 230 ; Buesching v. Gas-Light Co., 73 
 Mo. 229 ; Sweigert v. II. & St. J. R. R., 75 Id. 475 ; Waters v. Wing, 59 Penna. 
 St. 213 ; Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Id. 32 ; P. R. R. v. Weber, 76 Id. 157 ; K. C, 
 St. J. & C. B. R. R. v. Flynn, 78 Mo. 195, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 23 ; D. 
 & W. R. R. v. Spicker, 61 Tex. 427, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 160 ; P. R. R. v. 
 McTighe, 46 Penna. St. 316 ; P. R. R. v. Warner, 89 Id. 59 ; C. & P. R . R. v. Rowan, 
 66 Id. 393; Abbett v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 30 Minn. 482 ; Mares v. N. P. R. R., 
 
 Dak. , 17 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 620 ; Wilson v. N. P. R. R., 26 Minn.
 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 437 
 
 gards the burden of proof, the conflict of authority on 
 this question is not of material importance, for the 
 plaintiff, under either line of authorities, is entitled to 
 go to the jury when he has proven an injury to himself 
 caused by negligence on the part of the defendant, 
 without any obvious want of care on his own part, but 
 the variance between the cases is, as shown in the next 
 chapter, of importance as regards the presumption of 
 contributory negligence, and, upon principle, it seems 
 to be much more reasonable to throw on the railway 
 the burden of proving that which only becomes a ma- 
 terial issue in the cause when negligence upon its part 
 has been proved. 
 
 278 ; McQuilken v. C. P. E. R, 50 Cal. 7 ; MacDougall v. C. Ry., 63 Cal. 431, 
 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 143; P., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wright, 80 Ini 182, 5 
 An. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 628.
 
 438 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 I. The presumption as to negligence. 
 II. The presumption as to contributory negligence. 
 III. Certain minor presumptions. 
 
 I. THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 There is a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the rail- 
 way in the case of an injury caused by circumstances from which 
 may fairly be inferred a non-performance of duty on the part of the 
 railway. 
 
 375. In some cases "the very nature of the accident 
 may of itself, and through the presumption it carries, 
 supply the requisite proof;" 1 thus where circumstances 
 are proven from which it may fairly be inferred that 
 there is a reasonable probability that the accident re- 
 sulted from the want of some precaution which the 
 railway might, and ought to, have resorted to, there is, 
 in the absence of explanation by the railway, a pre- 
 sumption of negligence upon its part, or, as the rule is 
 put in Scott v. L. & St. K. Docks Co., 2 "where the par- 
 ticular thing causing the injury has been shown to be 
 under the management of the defendant, or his servants, 
 and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of 
 things does not happen, if those who have the manage- 
 ment use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in 
 the absence of explanation, that the accident arose from 
 want of care," In W. T. Co. v. Downer, 3 Field, J., 
 thus states the rule : " a presumption of negligence 
 
 1 Wharton on the Law of Negligence, Par. 421. 2 3 H & C. 596. 
 
 s 11 Wall. 129.
 
 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 439 
 
 from the simple occurrence of an accident seldom arises, 
 except where the accident proceeds from an act of such 
 a character that, when due care is taken in its perform- 
 ance, no injury ordinarily ensues from it in similar 
 cases, or where it is caused by the mismanagement, or 
 misconstruction, of a thing over which the defendant 
 has immediate control, and for the management, or 
 construction, of which he is responsible." 1 This rule was 
 first applied in cases where passengers were injured by 
 the breaking of the axle of a coach, 2 or by the careless 
 driving of a coach, 3 or by the coming off of a wheel of 
 a coach. 4 This presumption has been held to furnish 
 proof of negligence in cases of collision between two 
 trains operated by the same railway, 5 in the case of a 
 collision between two street cars, 6 in the case of collision 
 between a train which leaves the main line and cars on 
 a siding, 7 in the case of the explosion of the boiler of a 
 locomotive engine, 8 in cases of the derailment of railway 
 cars, 9 in the case of the giving way of an embank- 
 
 1 See also R. R. v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. 400. 
 
 2 Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79. 3 Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181. 
 * Ware v. Gay, 11 Pick. 106. 
 
 5 Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 5 Ex. 787 ; I. R. R. v. Mowery, 36 Ohio St. 
 418, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 361 ; N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. v. Allbritton, 38 
 Miss. 242. 
 
 6 Smith v. St. P. C. Ry., 32 Minn. 1, 16 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 310. 
 
 7 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. v. Seybolt, 95 N. Y. 562, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 162. 
 
 8 Robinson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R-, 20 Blatchf. 338. 
 
 9 Carpue v. L. & B. Rv., 5 Q. B. 747, 48 E. C. L.; Dawson ». M. By ,7 11. 
 & N. 1037 ; Sullivan v. P. & R. R. R-, 30 Penna. St. 23 I ; N. V, F, B. & W. 
 R. R. v. Daugherty, 11 Weekly Notes of < lases i Penna.) 437 ; Edgerton v. >'. 
 Y. C. & H. R R. R., 39 N. Y. 227; Festal v. M. R B., L09 Mass. 720; George 
 v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 34 Ark. 613, I Am. & Eng. B R Cas. 294; I'., C. 
 & St. L. Ry. v. Williams, 74 Ind. 462; < '., C.,C. & I By. v. Newell, 76 [d 
 Curtis*. B. & S. R R, 18 N. Y. 534; Tuttle v. <'., B I. & P. K.v., 48 [owa 
 236; Brignoli v. C. & G. E. R. K, 4 Daly L82; C, B. & Q. B B. v. ' 
 
 19 111. 510. Pollock, C. B., in Bird v. Q. W. By., 28 L. J. Exch. 3, doubts u 
 to the applicability of the presumption of negligence on the part of the rail- 
 way in a case of simple derailment. See also Heaale v. l. l'>. & W. By,76 ill.
 
 440 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 rrieiit, 1 in ,he case of the breaking down of a bridge, 2 in 
 the case jf the carrying away of a bridge by a freshet, 3 
 in cases where by a sudden jerk in starting or stopping a 
 car a passenger was thrown down, 4 in a case where a pas- 
 senger was injured in the course of a fight between other 
 passengers, 5 in a case where a passenger was injured by 
 the fall of a berth in a sleeping-car, 6 in a case where a 
 passenger on a packet boat was injured by a bale of 
 cotton negligently thrown down a hatchway by a ser- 
 vant of the packet company, 7 in a case where a passen- 
 ger while being carried in a car of the defendant, a 
 street car line, was injured in a collision between that 
 car and a railway engine, at a level crossing of the rail- 
 way line and the street on which the car ran; 8 in a 
 case where an intending passenger having purchased 
 a ticket, and while crossing the line at a station under 
 the direction of a station master, was, without fault upon 
 her part, run over by a train ; 9 in a case where the 
 plaintiff, walking upon the highway, was injured by the 
 fall of a barrel from the upper story of the defendant's 
 warehouse ; 10 in a case where the plaintiff, an officer of 
 
 501 ; Curtis v. R. & S. R. R., 18 N. Y. 543 ; L. R. & F. S. Ry. v. Miles, 40 
 Ark. 298, 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 10 ; Yonge v. Kinney, 28 Ga. Ill ; T. & St. 
 L. R. R. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 475. 
 
 1 G. W. Ry. v. Braid, 1 Moore P. C. N. S. 101, 9 Jur. N. S. 339 ; P. & R. R. 
 v. Anderson, 94 Penna. St. 251. 
 
 2 B. S. O. & B. R. R. v. Rainbolt, 99 Ind. 551, 21 Am. & Eng. R.R. Cas. 466. 
 
 3 K. P. Ry. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442. 
 
 4 N. J. R. R. v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341 ; C. P. Ry. v. Swayne, 13 Weekly Notes 
 of Cases (Penna.) 41 ; Ferry Co. v. Monaghan, 10 Id. 46; Dougherty v. M. R. 
 R., 81 Mo. 325, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 325. 
 
 5 P. & C. R. R. v. Pillow, 76 Penna. St. 510. 
 
 6 C, C, C. & I. R. R. v. Walrath, 38 Ohio St. 461, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 371. 
 
 7 O. & M. Packet Co. v. McCool, Ind. , 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 390. 
 
 8 P. P. Ry. v. Weiller, 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 306. 
 
 9 B. & O. R. R. R. v. State to use of Mali one, 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. & Eng. R 
 Ft. Cas. 202. 
 
 10 Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 721.
 
 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 441 
 
 the Custom's Service, while in the discharge of his duty, 
 entering the defendant's warehouse, was injured by the 
 fall of some bags of sugar from an upper story of the 
 warehouse ; l in a case where the plaintiff, walking on a 
 highway under a railway bridge, was injured by the 
 falling of a brick from an abutment, a train of the de- 
 fendant's having just passed, and the bridge having 
 been in use about three years and gaps being found in 
 the wall from which other bricks had apparently fallen; 2 
 in a case where, in the excavation of a cellar abutting 
 upon a highway, the cellar was left unfenced, and in 
 the morning the dead body of the plaintiff's decedent, 
 he being a man of proved sobriety, was found in the 
 cellar, with no marks of violence upon him other than 
 such as might have resulted from a fall into the cellar, 
 and with his watch and other personal property undis- 
 turbed; 3 and in a case where the dead body of the 
 plaintiff's decedent was found after dark between the 
 rails of the defendant's line, a train drawn by a locomo- 
 tive without a headlight having recently passed, and 
 decedent having been last seen upon the highway ap- 
 proaching a public crossing of the defendant's line. 4 
 
 376. This presumption has been held to be inappli- 
 cable in the case of a person injured on a highway used 
 as a part of a railway line by the falling upon him of 
 the door of a passing freight car, in the absence of 
 proof that the defect in the fastening of the door had 
 been brought to the knowledge of the defendant, or bad 
 so long existed that that knowledge must be presumed; 5 
 in a case where a passenger was injured by the fall 
 of a girder of a bridge over the line upon a carriage in 
 
 1 Scott v. L. & St. L. & K. Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596. 
 
 2 Kearney v. L. B. & 8. C. By., L. B. 6 Q. B. 759. 
 
 8 Allen v. Willard, 57 Penna. St. 374 ; rf. Lehman >■. Brooklyn, 29 Bart 
 
 *L. V. R. R. v. Hall, fil Penna.8t. 361 ; P. B, B < Fortn< 90 W 
 
 6 Case v. C, R. I. & P. R. K., 04 Iowa 7G2, 1'.' \>... <S Eng, l: B. ' ■< ■ I 12.
 
 442 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 motion, the girder being placed in position by a con- 
 tractor engaged by a municipal corporation; 1 in a 
 case where a passenger, while looking at a time-table on 
 the wall of a station portico, was injured by a plank 
 and a roll of zinc which broke through the roof of the 
 portico and fell on him; 2 in a case where a passen- 
 ger in driving a wagon off a ferry-boat was injured by 
 the wheels of the wagon striking the drop of the ferry 
 and causing the load to fall; 3 in a case where a 
 passenger was injured by having his arm crushed be- 
 tween the window of a street car and a passing load of 
 hay; 4 in a case where it was proven that the dece- 
 dent, a brakeman, had fallen from a moving train and 
 been killed, but the evidence failed to show the manner 
 of his death or what he was doing at the time of his 
 fall; 5 in a case where the dead body of a man of 
 intemperate habits was found at the end of a stormy 
 night on a railway bridge over a street; 6 in a case 
 where a passenger was injured by having his arm 
 crushed between the window of his car and an object 
 projecting from cars at rest on another track; 7 in a 
 case where a passenger, while being carried in a horse 
 car, was injured by a collision between that horse car 
 and a train on the defendant's line; 8 in a case where 
 a passenger was injured in stepping down from the 
 platform of a car; 9 and in a case where a servant of the 
 
 1 Daniel v. M. Ry., L. R. 3 C. P. 216, 591, 5 H. L. 45. 
 
 1 Welfare v. L. & B. Ry., L. R. 4 Q. B. 693. 
 
 3 LeBaron v. E. B. Ferry Co., 11 Allen 312. 
 
 * F. S. & P. V. R. R. v. Gibson, 96 Penna. St. 83. 
 
 8 Corcoran v. B. & A. R. R., 133 Mass. 507. 
 
 6 State, to use of Barnard v. P., W. & B. R. R., 60 Md. 555, 15 Am. & Eng. 
 R. R. Cas. 481. 
 
 7 Holbrook v. U. & S. Ry., 12 N. Y. 236. 
 
 8 P. & R. R. R. v. Boyer, 97 Penna. St. 91. 
 
 9 D., L. & W. R. R. v. Napheys, 90 Penna. St. 135, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Caa. 
 52 ; C, St. L. % N 0. R. R. v. Trotter, 60 Miss. 442 ; Mitchell v. C. & G. T.
 
 PRESUMTTON OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 443 
 
 railway, while at work on a station platform, was in- 
 jured by a mail bag thrown by a post-office agent from 
 the mail car of a passing train. 1 
 
 377. The presumption of negligence in the case of 
 an injury to a passenger under any of the circumstances 
 above stated, is rebutted by proof of the care exercised 
 by the railway, and it is then for the jury to find 
 whether or not the railway was negligent. 2 In Georgia, 3 
 in cases of injury to any person other than a servant of 
 the railway, there is always a 'prima facie presumption 
 of negligence against a railway. 4 
 
 II. THE PRESUMPTION AS TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 In those jurisdictions where it is held that the burden is on the plain- 
 tiff of proving that he was not contributorily negligent, it is also held 
 that there is a rebuttable presumption of contributory negligence^ 
 but in other jurisdictions where it is held that the burden is on the 
 railway of proving the plantiff's contributory negligence it is neces- 
 sarily held that there is a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff 
 was not contribidorily negligent. 
 
 378. In those jurisdictions where the burden is on 
 the plaintiff of proving affirmatively that he was not 
 contributorily negligent, the presumption necessarily is 
 that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, 5 but in 
 other jurisdictions where the burden is not on the plain- 
 tiff of proving affirmatively that he was not contribu- 
 torily negligent, the presumption, of course, is that he 
 
 By., 31 Mich. 266, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 176 ; cf. Puller V. IT. R. R, 21 
 Conn. 557 
 » Muster v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 61 Wise. 325, IS Am. .V Bug. R. B. < !aa 118. 
 
 2 Eldredge ». M. & St. L. R. R., 32 Minn. 253, 21 fcn. & Eng. K, B. Cm. 494. 
 
 3 Par. 3033 of the Code. 
 
 * Central R. R. v. Brinson, 64 Ga. 47.1; S. W. K. R. v. Bingleton, 07 U. 808. 
 
 « Corcoran v. B. & A. R. R, 133 Ma*. 607 ; Riley *.C. B. R. B, 186 Mam 
 292, 15 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 181 ; Clia.se v. M. C. R. K,, 77 Me. 62, 19 Am. 
 A Eng. R R. Cas. 350.
 
 444 MINOR PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 was not contributorily negligent. 1 This presumption is 
 rebutted when testimony to the contrary is adduced, and 
 the jury should be directed that if they believe the 
 testimony they should find for the defendant. 2 
 
 III. MINOR PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 379. Certain other presumptions are recognized in 
 some cases. Thus, where several other companies had 
 statutory running powers over the defendant's road and 
 defendant's train, on which the plaintiff was a passenger, 
 was run into by a moving train through the fault of the 
 guards of the latter, it was held that in the absence of 
 evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that the 
 train which caused the accident belonged to or was 
 under the control of the defendant. 3 Where a railway 
 owns a line in operation bearing the name of the railway 
 the presumption is that the railway operates it, and in 
 order to relieve itself from liability for injuries caused 
 by the negligence of the employes operating it, the bur- 
 den is upon the railway to show that it does not operate 
 the line. 4 So, also, there is a presumption that every 
 one riding in a railway car, intended for passengers, is 
 there lawfully, and the onus is upon the carrier to prove 
 affirmatively that such person was a trespasser; 5 but the 
 presumption is that an individual not in the service of 
 the railway and riding upon a freight train is not a 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Weber, 76 Penna. St. 157 ; Weiss v. P. R. R., 79 Id. 387, 87 Id. 
 447 ; L. V. R. R. v. Hall, 61 Id. 361 ; C. & P. R. R. v. Rowan, 66 Id. 393 ; 
 Longenecker v. P. R. R., 105 Id. 328 ; Schura v. P. R. R., 107 Id. 8 ; Buesching 
 v. St. L. G. L. Co., 73 Mo. 229 ; K. C, St. J. & C. B. R. R. v. Flynn, 78 Mo. 
 195 18 Am. & Eng. R. R, Cas. 23. 
 
 R. & C. R. R. v. Ritchie, 102 Penna. St. 425. See sections 182, 183. 
 
 8 Ayles v. S. E. Ry., L. R. 3 Ex. 146. 
 
 * Ferguson v. W. C. Ry., 63 Wise. 145, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 285. 
 
 6 P. R. R. v. Books, 57 Penna. St. 345 ; Creed v. P. R. R., 86 Id. 139.
 
 MINOR PRESUMPTIONS. 445 
 
 passenger. 1 As emergencies necessitating the arrest of 
 persons may be naturally expected to arise frequently 
 in the ordinary course of a railway's business, and are 
 of such a nature that a decision as to them must be made 
 promptly on the company's behalf, it is a reasonable in- 
 ference that the company have on the spot at their 
 stations officers authorized to make the decision promptly 
 for them, and where a plaintiff is arrested under the 
 authority of a superior officer at a railway station it will, 
 in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed 
 that he had authority to act for the railway. 2 A person 
 upon a train in motion acting as and wearing the uni- 
 form of a brakeman will be presumed to be a brakeman 
 in the employment of the railway operating the train. 3 
 A proven habit of intoxication in a conductor raises, in 
 the case of an injury to a passenger caused by the con- 
 ductor's action, a presumption of negligence. 4 If the 
 plaintiff has proven a physical injury it will be presumed 
 that physical pain followed the infliction of that injury, 
 and the existence of that pain as a substantive fact need 
 not be proved. 5 As a general rule there is no presump- 
 tion of negligence on the part of a railway in the case 
 of an injury to a servant of the railway. 6 
 
 There is a conclusive presumption that the laws of nature are certaiii 
 and uniform in their operation. 
 
 380. The presumptions which have been stated are 
 all rebuttable presumptions. Certain conclusive pre- 
 
 1 Eaton v. D., L. & W. R. R., 57 N. Y. 382 ; Waterbury v. N. Y. ( '. A : 1 1 B, 
 R. R., 17 Fed. Rep. 671. 
 
 2 Giles v. T. V. Ry., 2 El. & Bl. 822, 75 E. C L. ; Goff v. G. N. By. 8 I & 
 E. 672, 107 E. C. L. 
 
 3 Hughes v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R, 36 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 222 ; ffoffinao 9. N. Y. 
 C. &H. R. R. R., 44 Id. 1. 
 
 * P. R. R. ».Books,67 Penna. St.345 ; H. & B. T. It. B. v. I tecker, - I U. 12 I, 
 6 C. B. & Q. R. B. v. Wun.cr, 108 III. 588, 18 Am. & Eng. B. i:< a*. LOO. 
 ' T. W. & W. Ry. v. Moore, 77 111. 217; I. C. Ry. v. Houck, 72 Id. 286.
 
 446 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 sumptions, however, have been recognized in the cases; 
 thus the accuracy and certainty of the operation of the 
 laws of nature is presumed and testimony cannot be 
 received to contradict those laws, 1 or to prove a manifest 
 impossibility, as that a car could, within a few yards from 
 a position of rest, attain a high rate of speed. 2 
 
 1 Briggs v. Taylor, 28 Vt. 180. 
 
 * Cauley v. P. C. & St. L. Ry., 98 Penna. St. 498.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 447 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE RESPECTIVE PROVINCES OF THE COURT AND THE JURY, 
 
 I. Negligence and contributory negligence as questions of fact. 
 II. The duty of the judge. 
 
 I. NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AS 
 QUESTIONS OF FACT. 
 
 Negligence and contributory negligence are questions of fact to be de- 
 termined by the jury. 
 
 381. The maxim of the common law is, "ad questioner 
 juris respondent judices ; ad questionem facti respondent 
 juratores. ,> Every one concedes the soundness of the 
 general principle thus tersely stated, but there is often 
 a difference of opinion in the trial of causes as to the 
 real nature of the issue, and consequently as to the 
 character of the tribunal whose decision is to conclude 
 it. In actions for the recovery of damages for injuries 
 to the person, it is generally for the jury to determine 
 whether the defendant was negligent or the plaintiff 
 was contributorily negligent; 1 that is, whether either 
 party failed to exercise that degree of care which the 
 
 1 Crofts v. Waterhouse. 3Bing.319, HE. C. L: ; McCnllyr. Clarke, 40 Penna. 
 St. 406; W. & A. R. R. v. King, 70 Ga. 261, 19 Am. & Eng. B. EL I 
 Wright v. G. R. R., 34 Ga. 337 ; P. & C. B. B. v. Andrews, 89 Md.848; Mo- 
 Mahon v. N. C. Ry., Id. 449; P. R. B. v. State, to use of McGirr, 81 I.I. 108, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 326; P. & R. K. EL v. Killipo, 88 Penna. St. 412 ; 
 Schura v. P. R. R., 107 Id. 8; Bell v. H. & Si. J. Ft. EL, 7:' M6. 50, I \m. A 
 Eng. R. R. Cas. 580 ; Guggenheim v. L. 8. & M.S. K. EL, — Mich. — , 22 \ m & 
 Eng. R. B. Cas. 546; Peuna. Co. v. liens '1, 70 Ind. 569, 6 Am. A Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 79.
 
 448 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 circumstances of the case demanded, for the inquiry 
 necessitates, in the words of Strong, J., in McCully v. 
 Clarke, 1 an ascertainment of "both the duty and the 
 extent of performance." In order to reach a result the 
 jury have not only to consider the acts and omissions 
 of the parties, but they must also draw all the infer- 
 ences which directly result from those acts and omis- 
 sions, for, in general, the negligence of one party or 
 the other is, as Dr. Wharton has pertinently said, 2 not 
 "the subject of direct proof, but an inference from facts 
 put in evidence." 
 
 II. THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 It is the duty of the judge to submit for the determination of the jury 
 only those issues which are not concluded and agreed upon either 
 by the pleadings, or by express admissions of the parties, or by the 
 tacit admissions of the parties in their conduct of the cause ; and 
 before submitting those issues, it is the duty of the judge to deter- 
 mine whether as to each issue competent evidence has been produced, 
 which, if believed by the jury, will justify men of reasonable minds 
 in finding a verdict in favour of the party upon whom rests the 
 burden of proof in that particular issue. 
 
 382. Lord Blackburn has clearly pointed out, in his 
 judgment in D., W. & "W. Ry. v. Slattery, 3 that it is 
 the function of the jury to determine only those facts 
 which are the subject of controversy, and, therefore, 
 where any facts, and the necessary inferences to be 
 drawn from them, are expressly admitted, either by 
 the effect of the pleadings, or by a formal admission at 
 the trial, or are tacitly admitted " by such a conduct of 
 the cause as is equivalent to such an admission," it is 
 not necessary to take the opinion of the jury thereon, 
 but it is the duty of the judge to decide as to their 
 
 1 40 Penna. St. 406. * Law of Negligence 354. 
 
 8 3 App. Cas. 1201.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 449 
 
 legal effect. Therefore, upon the issue of the defend- 
 ant's negligence when the plaintiff has put in all the 
 legally admissible testimony which his counsel sees 
 proper to introduce, and upon the issue of the plain- 
 tiff's contributory negligence, when the plaintiff's case 
 has not shown him to have been contributorily negli- 
 gent, and when the defendant has put in all the evi- 
 dence which his counsel sees proper to introduce, it 
 becomes the duty of the judge to determine whether a 
 jury of reasonable men, believing that testimony, giving 
 full weight to it, and drawing all the inferences from it, 
 would be justified in finding a verdict for the party who 
 has produced that evidence, for as Williams, J., said in 
 Adams Express Co. v. Sharpless : x "the jury cannot 
 find nesdisence from facts and circumstances which do 
 not tend to show want of reasonable and ordinary care, 
 any more than they can find any other facts without 
 competent and sufficient evidence." It was formerly 
 the doctrine that a question of fact must necessarily be 
 submitted to the jury, if it were supported by no more 
 than a mere scintilla of evidence, but the later cases 
 have adopted a more reasonable rule, which has been 
 stated by different judges in different words, but to the 
 same effect. Thus, in Jewell v. Parr, 2 Maule, J., said : 
 "applying the maxim, de minimis non curat lex, when 
 we say that there is no evidence to go to a jury, we do 
 not mean that there is literally none, but that there is 
 none which ought reasonably to satisfy a jury thai the 
 fact sought to be proved is established." In Toomey v. 
 L.B.&S.C.Ky., 3 Williams, J., said: "it is not enough 
 to say that there was some evidence, Cor every person 
 who has had any experience in courts of justice knows 
 very well that a case of this sort against ;i railway com- 
 
 > 77 Penna. St. 522. 2 1 8 C B. 909, 76 E. C. L. 
 
 3 3 C. It. N. S. 149, 91 E. C L. 
 29
 
 450 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 pany could only be submitted to a jury with one result. 
 A scintilla of evidence, or a mere surmise that there may 
 have been negligence on the part of* the defendants, 
 clearly would not justify the judge in leaving the case 
 to the jury; there must be evidence upon which they 
 might reasonably and properly conclude that there was 
 negligence." In Ryder v. Wombwell, 1 Willes said: 
 "there is in every case a preliminary question which is 
 one of law, viz. : whether there is any evidence on which 
 the jury could properly find the question for the party 
 on whom the onus of proof lies. If there is not, the judge 
 ought to withdraw the question from the jury, and direct a 
 nonsuit if the onus is on the plaintiff, or direct a verdict for 
 the plaintiff if the onus is on the defendant." In Bridges 
 v. N. L. Ry., 2 the judges having been called in, Pollock, B., 
 said, referring to Ryder v. Wombwell: "this is a clear ex- 
 position of the rule, and it has been generally acquiesced 
 in and acted upon, and it follows from it that although 
 the question of negligence, or no negligence, is usually 
 one of pure fact, and, therefore, for the jury, it is the 
 duty of the judge to keep in view a distinct legal defi- 
 nition of negligence as applicable to the particular case; 
 and if the facts proved by the plaintiff do not, whatever 
 view can be reasonably taken of them, or inference 
 drawn from them by the jurors, present a hypothesis 
 which comes within that legal definition, then to with- 
 draw them from their consideration." The Lords, who 
 decided Bridges' case, having held that upon the facts 
 there was evidence of negligence to go to the jury, but 
 not in express terms either approving of or dissenting 
 from the rule as laid down in Ryder v. Wombwell, there 
 not unnaturally followed some misapprehension as to 
 the proper course to be pursued by a judge in directing 
 
 1 L. E. 4 Ex. 32. 'LR.7 H. L. 213.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 451 
 
 a jury upon a question of negligence In Robson v. N. 
 E. Rj., 1 Coleridge, C. J., intimated that the effect of 
 Bridges' case was that "if there was any evidence at all, 
 it is for the jury and not for the judge to say whether 
 there was negligence on the part of the company ;" and 
 Brett, J., added 2 that, "as the carrying of passengers 
 was conduct in the ordinary affairs of life, the jury was 
 the proper tribunal to decide;" and in Jackson v. Metro- 
 politan By., 3 Amphlett, J. A., said : "it is now settled 
 by the case of Bridges v. N. L. By. (though previously 
 doubted by many eminent judges), that the question 
 whether in cases of this sort negligence can be inferred 
 from a given state of facts, is itself a question of fact for 
 the jury, and not a question of law for the court, or the 
 presiding judge." But when Jackson's case came be- 
 fore the House of Lords, 4 Cairns, L. C, and Lords 
 O'Hagan, Blackburn, and Gordon concurred in holding 
 that Bridges' case did not have the effect attributed to 
 it of qualifying the rule in Byder v. Wombwell, Cairns, 
 L. C, saying: 5 "the judge has a certain duty to dis- 
 charge and the jury have another and a different duty. 
 The judge has to say whether any facts have been es- 
 tablished by evidence from which negligence may be 
 reasonably inferred ; the jurors have to say whether 
 from those facts when submitted to them negligence 
 ought to be inferred" and Lord Blackburn adding: "on 
 a trial by jury I conceive, undoubtedly, that the facts 
 are for the jury and the law for the judge. * • * It has 
 always been considered a question of law, to be deter- 
 mined by the judge, subject, of course, to review, whether 
 there is evidence which if it is believed, and the con- 
 trary evidence, if any, is not believed, would establish 
 
 1 2 Q. B. D. 87. ' P- 89 - 
 
 8 L. R. 2 C. P. D. 127. * 3 App. Cas. 193. 
 
 6 P. 197.
 
 452 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 the fact in controversy. It is for the jury to say 
 whether and how far the evidence is to be believed. 
 And if the facts, as to which evidence is given, are such 
 that from them a farther inference of fact may legit- 
 imately be drawn, it is for the jury to say whether that 
 inference is to be drawn or not. But it is for the judge 
 to determine, subject to review, whether from those 
 facts that farther inference legitimately may be drawn." 
 In D. W. & W. Ey. v. Slattery, 1 the rule as thus de- 
 fined, was reasserted. Lord Coleridge, however, 2 
 doubted the practical efficacy of the rule, saying: "to 
 me the uselessness of such rules as practical guides lies 
 in the inherent vagueness of the word 'reasonable,' the 
 absolute impossibility of finding a definite standard to 
 be expressed in language, for the fairness and reason of 
 mankind, even of judges. The reason and fairness of 
 one man is manifestly no rule for the reason and fairness 
 of another, and it is an awkward, but so far as I can 
 see, an inevitable consequence, of the rule, that in every 
 case where the decision of a judge is overruled, who does 
 or does not stop a case on the ground that there is, or 
 is not, reasonable evidence for reasonable men, those 
 who overrule him say, by implication, that in the case 
 before them the judge who is overruled is out of the 
 pale of reasonable men. The same is true of a whole 
 court, the decision of which, in a case of this sort, is 
 reversed upon appeal." But this criticism, eminent as 
 is the source from whence it proceeds, would seem to be 
 answered by the observations of Mellor, J., and of Lord 
 Blackburn. The former said, in Ryder v. Wombwell : 3 
 "there is no doubt a possibility in all cases where the 
 judges have to determine whether there is evidence on 
 which the jury may reasonably find a fact, that the 
 
 *3 App. Cas. 1155. J P. 1197. 
 
 * L. R. 4 Ex. 42.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 453 
 
 judges may differ in opinion, and it is possible that the 
 majority may be wrong. Indeed, whenever a decision 
 of the court below on such a point is reversed, the ma- 
 jority must have been so, either in the court above or in 
 the court below. This is an infirmity which must affect 
 all tribunals." The latter, after quoting the statement 
 of Mellor, J., added, in Metropolitan Ry. v. Jackson i 1 
 "I quite agree that this is so, and it is an evil. But I 
 think it a far slighter evil than it would be to leave in 
 the hands of the jury a power which might be exercised 
 in the most arbitrary manner." 
 
 383. One of the best expositions of the rule is that 
 which was given by Miller, J., in the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, in Pleasants v. Fant, 2 where that 
 learned judge says : " it is the duty of a court in its re- 
 lation to the jury, to protect a party from unjust ver- 
 dicts arising from ignorance of the rules of law and of 
 evidence, from impulse of passion or prejudice, or from 
 any other violation of his lawful rights in the conduct 
 of a trial. This is done by making plain to them the 
 issues they are to try, by admitting only such evi- 
 dence as is proper in those issues, and rejecting all else ; 
 by instructing them in the rules of law by which that 
 evidence is to be examined and applied, and finally, 
 when necessary, by setting aside a verdict which is un- 
 supported by evidence, or contrary to law. In the dis- 
 charge of this duty it is the province of the court, either 
 before or after the verdict, to decide whether the plain- 
 tiff has given evidence sufficient to support, or justify, 
 a verdict in his favour. Not whether on all the evi- 
 dence the preponderating weight is in his favour, thai is 
 the business of the jury, but conceding to all the evi- 
 dence the greatest probative force which, according to 
 the law of evidence, it is fairly entitled to, is it sufficient 
 
 '3App.Cas.208. ' 22 Wall. 121.
 
 454 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 to justify a verdict ? If it is not, then it is the duty of 
 the court, after a verdict, to set it aside and grant a 
 new trial. Must the court go through the whole cere- 
 mony in such a case, of submitting to the jury the testi- 
 mony on which the j>laintiff relies, when it is clear to 
 the judicial mind, that if the jury should find a verdict 
 in favour of the plaintiff, that verdict would be set aside 
 and a new trial had ? Such a proposition is absurd, and 
 accordingly we hold the true principle to be, that if the 
 court is satisfied that, conceding all the inferences which 
 the jury can justifiably draw from the testimony, the 
 evidence is insufficient to warrant a verdict for the 
 plaintiff, the court should say so to the jury." This 
 doctrine, in itself so obviously reasonable and so con- 
 ducive to the right administration of justice, has been 
 asserted in many other cases. 1 
 
 1 Jewell v. Parr, 13 C. B. 909, 76 E. C. L. ; Wheelton v. Hardisty, 8 E. 
 & Bl. (92 E. C. L.) 232; Bridges v. N. L. Ry., L. R. 7 H. L. 213; Eobson v. 
 K E. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 87 ; Metropolitan Ry. v. Jackson, L. R. 3 App. 
 Cas. 193 ; D. W. & W. Ry. v. Slattery, Id. 1170 ; Pawling v. U. S., 4 Cranch 
 221 ; U. S. Bank v. Smith, 11 Wheaton 179 ; Parks v. Ross, 11 Howard 373; 
 Schuchardt v. Allen, 1 Wallace 368; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Id. 
 604 ; Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Id. 442 ; Bowditch v. Boston, 101 U. S. 
 16 ; Randall v. B. & O. R. R., 109 Id. 478; Hughes v. Boyer, 9 Watts. 556; 
 Germantown P. Ry. v .Walling, 97 Penna. St. 55 ; Central R. R. v. Feller, 84 Id. 
 229 ; Amer. S. S. Co. v. Bryan, 83 Id. 448 ; P., W. & B. R. R. v. Stinger, 78 Id. 
 219 ; Crissey v. Hestonville P. Ry., 75 Id. 83 ; Phila. P. R. v. Hassard, Id. 
 376 ; McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Id. 223 ; Giblin v. McMullen, L. R. 2 P. C. 335 ; 
 L. V. R. R. v. McKeen, 90 Penna. St. 122 ; Demy v. Wiiliams, 5 Allen 1 ; Brooks 
 v. Somerville, 106 Mass. 271; Penna. Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Penna. 34 ; 
 Howard Express Co. v. Wile, 64 Id. 201 ; P. & R. R. R. v. Schertle, 97 Id. 
 450; Hyatt v. Johnston, 91 Id. 196 ; Longenecker v. P. R. R., 105 Id. 328 ; 
 Hoye v. C. & N. W. Ry., 62 Wise. 666, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 347 ; Spens- 
 ley v. Insurance Co., 54 Wise. 433 ; Sabotta v. Insurance Co., 54 Id. 687 ; Fitta 
 v. C. C. Ry., 59 Wise 325, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 462 ; C. P. Ry. v. Foxley, 
 107 Penna. 537 ; Hogan v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 59 Wise. 139, 15 Am. & Eng. R. 
 R. Cas. 439 ; Dietrich v. B. & H. S. Ry., 58 Md. 347, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 115 ; Carter v. C. & G. R. R., 19 Shand. (S. C.) 20, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 414 ; Finney v. N. P. Ry., Dak. 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 17 ; P. 
 R. R. v. Fortney, 90 Penna. St. 324, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 129 ; Abbett v. 
 C, M. & St. P. Ry. 30 Minn. 482 ; Montclair v. Dana., 107 U. S. 162 ; Ander- 
 son County v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227 ; Baylis v. Travellers' Insurance Co., 113 U. 
 S. 316 ; Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U. S. 415.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 455 
 
 384. Negligence being a question of fact for the jury, 
 it necessarily follows that no possible act of either com- 
 mission or omission on the part of either the plaintiff 
 or the defendant can, with logical accuracy, be charac- 
 terized as per se negligent, but all that can be predicated 
 of any such act, when found or admitted as a fact, is, 
 that it is so obviously negligent, that a jury would not 
 be reasonable if they found it not to be negligence, and 
 that, therefore, it is the duty of the judge to so direct 
 the jury, and, if they find against his direction, to grant 
 a new trial. The jDractical application of the rule in 
 the trial of actions against railways for injuries to the 
 person, therefore, is, that, before submitting the issue 
 to the consideration of the jury, the judge must 1 deter- 
 mine whether or not the party on whom the burden of 
 proof lies has, according to the rules of evidence, proved 
 facts, which, although not necessarily satisfactory to 
 the mind of the judge, would justify a jury of reason- 
 able men in finding a verdict in favour of that party ; 
 thus, if the issue be taken upon the negligence of the 
 defendant, the question for the determination of the 
 judge is, whether or not the evidence produced on 
 behalf of the plaintiff, admitting its truth, stating it 
 fairly, and drawing from it all the inferences that rea- 
 sonably can be drawn from it, is such that the jury may 
 reasonably find a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evi- 
 dence does not amount to this, it is the duty el' the 
 judge to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direct a verdict for 
 the defendant. If the issue be taken upon the {►Iain- 
 tiff's contributory negligence, the judge musl determine 
 whether the testimony upon behalf of the plaintiff 
 proves him to have been contributorily negligent If 
 that testimony does have that effect, it is the duty of 
 the judge to nonsuit the plaintiff or to direel a verdict 
 for the defendant. If the plaintiff's case lias not de-
 
 456 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 veloped contributory negligence, and the testimony pro- 
 duced upon the part of the defendant, admitting its 
 truth and drawing all the inferences that can reason- 
 ably be drawn from it does have that effect, it is then 
 the duty of the judge to submit the question of con- 
 tributory negligence to the jury ; but, if the testimony 
 offered by the defendant to establish the plaintiff's con- 
 tributory negligence is not sufficient, conceding its truth 
 and drawing the inferences from it, to justify a verdict 
 for the defendant upon that issue, it is the duty of the 
 judge to direct the jury that the plaintiff has not been 
 shown to have been contributorily negligent. It must 
 be remembered that it is for the jury, and not for the 
 judge, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses. It is, 
 therefore, not competent for the judge to direct a ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff upon the issue of the defendant's 
 negligence, when the evidence to establish that negli- 
 gence has been produced upon behalf of the plaintiff, 
 nor to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the issue 
 of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, when the 
 evidence to prove that contributory negligence has been 
 produced upon behalf of the defendant, because, in either 
 case, the jury may not believe the witnesses, and it is 
 only when the truth of the testimony can be assumed 
 that the judge is authorized to direct a verdict, for the 
 direction of a verdict amounts to a statement that, ad- 
 mitting the truth of the testimony produced to support 
 the issue, that testimony is not legally sufficient to 
 support it. This view is illustrated by Baylis v. 
 Traveller's Ins. Co., 1 in delivering judgment, in which 
 case, Matthews, J., said : " without a waiver of the right 
 of trial by jury by consent of parties, the court errs if 
 it substitutes itself for the jury, and, passing upon ths 
 
 1 113 u. S. 316.
 
 THE COURT AND THE JURY. 457 
 
 effect of the evidence, finds the facts involved in the 
 issue, and renders judgment thereon." 
 
 385. No one can carefully study the cases against 
 railways for injuries to the person as reported in the 
 books, or observe the trials of such causes in the courts, 
 without coming to the conclusion that there is often a 
 miscarriage of justice, for, as Lord Blackburn said, 1 
 the real question seems often to be " whether it was not 
 shabby in the railway company not to give something 
 to the widow and orphans of the deceased." It is com- 
 mon to attribute that result to the prejudices of jurors. 
 But a careful consideration of the details of any such 
 case will show that, more frequently, the real cause of 
 the failure to do substantial justice is the inability of 
 the judge at the trial to properly control the jury. 
 Better results would undoubtedly be attained if the 
 judges would submit specific questions for the deter- 
 mination of the jurors so framed as to elicit a distinct 
 finding as to the particular act of negligence upon the 
 part of the defendant, or of contributory negligence 
 upon the part of the plaintiff. 2 In jurisdictions where 
 this course upon the part of the judge is not permis- 
 sible, or, if permissible, not expedient, lie may never- 
 theless, if he be intelligent, courageous, of sufficient 
 decision of character, and, in one word, competent, pre- 
 vent, by the application of the rules of evidence, the 
 minds of the jury from being diverted from the true 
 point of inquiry, and submitting questions to them only 
 upon adequate proof, and in his charge putting clearly 
 and unmistakably before them the precise questions of 
 fact which it is their province to determine, and by his 
 
 1 D., W. & "W. Ry. v. Blattery, L. R. 3 App. Cm. 1162. 
 
 2 The technicalities required inflpecial rerdicts under the common law n odei 
 them inadvisable. See P., P. W. AG B. B. o. Evens, 53 Penna St. 2 I P, 
 C. & St. L. R. R. v. Spencer, 93 Ind. 186, 21 Am, & Eng. B. B. I a 178.
 
 458 THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE. 
 
 instructions upon the law, conveyed in clear terms and 
 laid down with firmness and decision, he may save them 
 from being swayed by extraneous circumstances and 
 from misapprehending the question in the cause, the 
 evidence relevant to it, or the rule of law controlling 
 their decision, and if they should fail to obey his ruling 
 as to the law, or should disregard the evidence, he can, 
 by the granting of a new trial, prevent injustice.
 
 DAMAGES. 459 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 I. Damages for breaches of contract. 
 II. Damages for torts. 
 
 III. Exemplary damages. 
 
 IV. The measure of damages in cases of injuries not causing death. 
 V. The measure of damages in cases of injuries causing death. 
 
 VI. Statutory limitations of damages. 
 
 I. DAMAGES FOR BREACHES OF CONTRACT. 
 
 Where the action is grounded upon the railway's breach of a contract 
 of carriage, damages are recoverable for such injuries as naturally 
 result from the breach of contract, and for such other injuries as may 
 be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the 
 time of the making of the contract as a probable result of its breach. 
 
 386. Where the action is grounded upon the railway's 
 breach of a contract of carriage, the damages recover- 
 able are such as may fairly and reasonably be con- 
 sidered as either naturally arising, that is, arising 
 according to the usual course of things from such 
 breach of contract itself, or such as may be supposed 
 to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the 
 time they made the contract as the probable result of a 
 breach of it. 1 If the plaintiff seeks to recover special 
 damages beyond those which may be supposed to have 
 been in the contemplation of both parties at the time 
 of the making of the contract as a probable result of a 
 breach of it, it is necessary that the circumstances upon 
 
 1 Hobbs v. L. & S. W. Ry., L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill; Qoimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 
 
 N. Y. 80G; Trigg v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ky., 71 Bio. 117, <i Am. ,*t In-. K. K. 
 Cas. 345.
 
 460 BREACH OF CONTRACT. 
 
 which the claim for special damages is founded should 
 have been, before the making of the contract, brought 
 to the attention of the other contracting party; 1 and 
 in order that the notice of such special circumstances 
 should give the right of recovery of special damages, it 
 is necessary that those circumstances should be such that 
 the making of the contract with notice of those circum- 
 stances amounts to an actual engagement on the part of 
 the defendant to bear the exceptional loss. 2 In Hamlin 
 v. G. N. Ey., 3 the defendant had contracted to carry 
 the plaintiff by train from London to Grimsby, and 
 thence by a connecting train to Hull, and upon his 
 arrival at Grimsby, there being no train to take him to 
 Hull as there should have been according to the con- 
 tract, he was compelled to stay at Grimsby over night 
 and to pay Is. 4d. for his fare to Hull, and he arrived 
 at Hull too late to take a train to another place to 
 which he had intended to go on business, but which 
 intention he had not communicated to the railway. At 
 the trial the judge directed the jury that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to recover only for the cost of his stay at 
 Grimsby and his fare to Hull, but that, not having 
 communicated to the railway his intention of proceed- 
 ing beyond Hull, he could not recover damages for 
 having been prevented from so doing, and after a ver- 
 
 1 Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341 ; Hamlin v. G. N. Ry., 1 H. & M. 408 ; 
 Fletcher v. Tayleur, 17 C. B. 21, 84 E. C. L. ; Le Peintur v. S. E. Ry., 2 L. J. 
 N. S. 170 ; G. W. Ry. v. Redmayne, L. R. 1 C. P. 329 ; Griffen v. Colver, 16 
 N. Y. 489 ; Hamilton v. McPherson, 28 Id. 72; Krom v. Levy, 48 Id. 679 ; 
 Crater v. Bininger, 33 N. J. L. 513 ; Fessler v. Love, 43 Penna. St. 313 ; Adams 
 Express Co. v. Egbert, 36 Id. 360 ; Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Foster, 59 Id. 365 ; 
 Wolf v. Studebaker, 65 Id. 459 ; Phelan v. Andrews, 52 Id. 486 ; Smead t;. 
 Foord, 1 El. & El. 602, 102 E. C. L. ; Borries v. Hutchinson, 18 C. B. N. 
 S. 445, 114 E. C. L. ; Messmore v. N. Y. Shot Co., 40 N. Y. 422; Wilson v. 
 The N. Dock Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 177 ; M. & C. R. R. v. Green, 52 Miss. 779. 
 
 2 Home v. Midland Ry., L. R. 8 C. P. 131 ; Gee v. L. & Y. Ry., 6 H. & N. 
 211. 
 
 » 1 H. & N. 408.
 
 DAMAGES. 461 
 
 diet for the plaintiff with 5s. damages, a rule, which 
 was moved for on behalf of the plaintiff, was refused. 
 So in Burton v. Pinkerton, 1 the defendant having en- 
 gaged the plaintiff to serve as a mariner for twelve 
 months on a merchant ship, from London to Rio and 
 other ports, and the plaintiff having left the ship at Rio 
 because she was employed in the naval service of the 
 Peruvian government, then at war with Spain, brought 
 his action for his wages under the contract, and also for 
 the recovery of damages for his imprisonment at Rio 
 as a deserter, and for the loss of clothes of which the 
 defendant had deprived him. The jury having found 
 for the plaintiff in the sum of £12 10s. for loss of wages 
 and £50 damages for his imprisonment and loss of 
 clothes, a rule was made absolute for a new trial for the 
 £50 damages, Bramwell, B., saying : " it is true that 
 in one sense the defendant's conduct caused the impris- 
 onment ; but for that no doubt the plaintiff would not 
 have been imprisoned. That, however, is not enough. 
 Suppose, for instance, the plaintiff had met robbers 
 while ashore, and had been injured by them, he certainly 
 could have recovered nothing from the defendant for 
 such injury, yet the defendant might in that case also 
 be said to have caused the damage. According to tin 1 
 ordinary rule, damage, to be recoverable by a plaintiff, 
 must inevitably flow from the tortious actof the defend- 
 ant. It must be caused by him as the causa causans, 
 and this imprisonment was not so caused." So in <i. 
 W. Ry. v. Redmaync, 2 where the railway bad broken 
 its contract to carry certain goods to Cardiff, and to de- 
 liver them at a certain time, and the plaintiff losl the 
 profits of their sale because the plaintiff's agent, to 
 whom they were to have been delivered for Bale, bad 
 
 i L. E. 2 Ex. 340. ' L- * * & P - 329 -
 
 462 BREACH OF CONTRACT. 
 
 left Cardiff before the goods arrived, it was held that 
 in the absence of notice to the railway of the purpose 
 for which the goods were sent such profits could not be 
 recovered as damages for the delay. So in Woodger v. 
 G. W. Ry., 1 where a commercial traveller had delivered 
 to the railway certain samples of goods to be carried to 
 Liverpool, but did not state the purpose for which the 
 goods were required at Liverpool, and the goods being 
 delayed the commercial traveller waited three days un- 
 employed at Liverpool, it was held that his hotel ex- 
 penses there could not be recovered as damages. So in 
 Home v. M. Ry., 2 where the plaintiffs, being shoe man- 
 ufacturers at Kettering, and having contracted to de- 
 liver at a day certain a quantity of shoes to a firm in 
 London, for the use of the French army, at a price 
 largely in excess of the market price, delivered the 
 shoes to the railway at Kettering in sufficient time for 
 their transportation to and delivery in London under 
 the contract, and gave notice to the railway that the 
 plaintiffs had contracted to deliver the shoes in London 
 at a stated time, and that unless delivered they would 
 be thrown on their hands ; the shoes not having been 
 delivered in time, and not being accepted, and being 
 sold by the plaintiffs at the market rate, which was 
 much lower than the contract price, it was held in the 
 Exchequer Chamber that, the railway not having been 
 informed of the exceptional character of the contract, 
 the difference between the market rate and the contract 
 price could not be recovered as damages naturally aris- 
 ing from their breach of contract. So in Gee v. L. & 
 Y. Ry., 3 it was held that a railway was not liable, by 
 reason of its breach of a contract to deliver cotton 
 to a manufacturer at a time certain, to compensate him 
 for the wages paid to hands who were kept in idleness, 
 
 1 L. R. 2 C. P. 318. » L. R. 8 C. P. 131. 3 6 H. & N. 211.
 
 DAMAGES. 463 
 
 and for the profits he could have made if he had had 
 the cotton to work, no notice having been given to the 
 railway that the mill would be stopped if the cotton 
 were not delivered. So in Hobbs and wife v. L. & 
 S. W. Ry., 1 the defendant having broken its contract 
 to carry the plaintiffs by train to Hampton Court, and 
 having set them down after midnight of a rainy night 
 at a station some miles away, where the plaintiffs could 
 not obtain accommodation at an inn, nor secure any 
 means of conveyance to their home, and being com- 
 pelled to walk to their home, the wife caught cold and was 
 ill for some time thereafter, and expenses were incurred 
 for medical attendance. The jury having found for 
 the plaintiffs, and assessed as damages (in addition to 
 £2 paid into court by the railway) £8 in respect of 
 the plaintiff's inconvenience, and £20 in respect of the 
 wife's illness and its consequences, a rule for a new trial 
 was discharged as to the £8 and made absolute as to 
 the £20, Cockburn, C. J., saying : " now, inasmuch as 
 there was manifest personal inconvenience, I am at a 
 loss to see why that inconvenience should not be com- 
 pensated by damages in such an action as this. It has 
 been endeavoured to be argued, upon principle and 
 upon authority, that this was a kind of damage which 
 could not be supported ; and attempts were also made 
 to satisfy us that this supposed inconvenience was more 
 or less imaginary, and would depend upon the strength 
 and constitution of the parties, and various other cir- 
 cumstances; and that it is not to be taken that a walk 
 of so many additional miles would be a thing thai a 
 person would dislike or suffer inconvenience from ; and 
 that there may be circumstances under which a walk 
 of several miles, so far from being matter of inconven- 
 
 »L. E. 10 Q. B. 111.
 
 4G4 BREACH OF CONTRACT. 
 
 ience, would be just the contrary. All that depends on 
 the actual facts of each individual case; and if the jury 
 are satisfied that, in the particular instance, personal 
 inconvenience, or suffering, has been occasioned, and 
 that it has been occasioned as the immediate effect of 
 the breach of the contract, I can see no reasonable prin- 
 ciple why that should not be comjDensated for. * * * * 
 To entitle a person to damages by reason of a breach of 
 contract, the injury for which compensation is asked 
 should be one that may be fairly taken to have been con- 
 templated by the parties as the possible result of the 
 breach of contract. Therefore, you must have something 
 immediately flowing out of the breach of contract com- 
 plained of, something immediately connected with it, 
 and not merely connected with it through a series of 
 causes intervening between the immediate consequence 
 of the breach of contract and the damage, or injury, 
 complained of. To illustrate that, I cannot take a 
 better case than the one now before us ; suppose that a 
 passenger is put out at a wrong station on a wet night 
 and obliged to walk a considerable distance in the rain, 
 catching a violent cold which ends in a fever, and the 
 passenger is laid up for a couple of months, and loses 
 through this illness the offer of an employment which 
 would have brought him a handsome salary. No one, 
 I think, who understood the law, would say that the 
 loss so occasioned is so connected with the breach of 
 contract as that the carrier breaking the contract could 
 be held liable. Here, I think, it cannot be said the 
 catching cold by the plaintiff's wife is the immediate 
 and necessary effect of the breach of contract, or was 
 one which could be fairly said to have been in the con- 
 templation of the parties. As my brother Blackburn 
 points out, so far as the inconvenience of the walk home 
 is concerned, that must be taken to be reasonably within
 
 DAMAGES. 465 
 
 the contemplation of the parties; because, if a carrier 
 engages to put a person down at a given place, and does 
 not put him down there, but puts him down somewhere 
 else, it must be in the contemplation of everybody that 
 the passenger put down at the wrong place must get to 
 the place of his destination somehow or other. If there 
 are means of conveyance for getting there, he may take 
 those means and make the company responsible for the 
 expense ; but if there are no means, I take it to be law 
 that the carrier must compensate him for the personal 
 inconvenience which the absence of those means has 
 necessitated. That flows out of the breach of contract 
 so immediately, that the damage resulting must be ad- 
 mitted to be fair subject-matter of damages. But in 
 this case, the wife's cold and its consequences cannot 
 stand upon the same footing as the personal inconven- 
 ience arising from the additional distance which the 
 plaintiffs had to go. It is an effect of the breach of 
 contract in a certain sense, but removed one stage ; it is 
 not the primary, but the secondary, consequence of it ; 
 and if in such a case the party recovered damage by 
 reason of the cold caught incidentally on that foot jour- 
 ney, it would be necessary, on the principle so applied, 
 to hold that in the two cases which have been put in 
 the course of the discussion, the party aggrieved would 
 be equally entitled to recover. And yet the moment 
 the cases are stated, everybody would agree that, accord- 
 ing to our law, the parties are not entitled to recover. 
 I put the case: suppose in walking home on a dark night, 
 the plaintiff made a false step and fell and broke a Limb, or 
 sustained bodily injury from the fall, everybody would 
 agree that this is too remote, and is not the consequence 
 which, reasonably speaking, might be anticipated t<> 
 follow from the breach of contract, A person might 
 walk a hundred times, or, indeed, a great many more 
 
 30
 
 40 G BREACH OF CONTRACT. 
 
 times, from Eslier to Hampton, without falling down 
 and breaking a limb; therefore, it could not be con- 
 tended that that could have been anticipated as the 
 likely and probable consequence of the breach of con- 
 tract. Again, the party is entitled to take a carriage 
 to his home. Suppose the carriage overturns, or breaks 
 down, and the party sustains bodily injury from either 
 of these causes, it might be said : ' if you had put me 
 down at my proper place of destination, where by your 
 contract you engaged to put me clown, I should not 
 have had to walk, or to go, from Esher to Hampton in 
 a carriage, and I should not have met with the accident 
 in the walk, or in the carriage.' In either of those 
 cases the injury is too remote, and I think that is the 
 case here ; it is not the necessary consequence, it is not 
 even the probable consequence, of a person being put 
 down at an improper place, and having to walk home, 
 that he should sustain either personal injury or catch a 
 cold. That cannot be said to be within the contempla- 
 tion of the parties so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover, 
 and to make the defendants liable to pay damages for 
 the consequences." In Francis v. St. L. T. Co., 1 the 
 facts were similar to those in Hobb's case, and a like 
 conclusion was reached by the court. 2 
 
 887. There are, however, some reported cases in 
 which passengers have been permitted to recover as 
 damages, for the breach by a railway of its contract of 
 carriage, compensation for illness following upon a 
 walk taken by the passenger in consequence of the 
 
 1 5 Mo. Ap. Cas. 7. 
 
 2 See also Walsh v. O, M. & St. P. Ry., 42 Wise. 23 ; L. & N. R. R. v. Flem- 
 ing, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 347 ; Lewis v. F. & P. M. 
 Ry., 54 Mich. 55, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 263 ; St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. v. 
 Trigg, 74 Mo. 147, 6 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 345 ; St. L., K. C. & N. R. R. v. 
 Marshall, 78 Mo. 610, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 248 ; Morse v. Duncan, TJ. S, 
 C. C S. D. Miss., 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 374.
 
 DAMAGES. 467 
 
 railway's breach of contract; 1 but there is, in the judg- 
 ments in these cases, nothing which answers the reason- 
 ing so forcibly put by Cockburn, C. J., in Hobb's 
 case. 
 
 388. Upon the same principle, a passenger, whose 
 contract of carriage has been broken by the failure of 
 the railway, through the arrival of its train too late to 
 make an advertised connection, cannot recover the cost 
 of a special train, where he had no business at the point 
 of destination which would have induced him to incur 
 such an expenditure at his own cost; 2 nor can a plain- 
 tiff, who sues in an action sounding in contract, recover 
 damages from the railway for indignities inflicted upon 
 him by the police, for a cold caught while confined, and 
 for mental suffering, following a wrongful arrest by the 
 railway's servants. 3 So, in Theobald v. Ry. Passengers 
 Assurance Co., 4 the plaintiff, in stepping from a rail- 
 way carriage at a station, slipped and fell without fault 
 upon his part, and brought suit against the defendant on 
 a policy covenanting that £1,000 would be paid to the 
 plaintiff's personal representative in case of his death, 
 or a proportionate part of the £1,000 to himself in case 
 of injury resulting from railway accident while trav- 
 elling. There was verdict for the plaintiff £34 19s. for 
 medical attendance and expenses, and £100 for loss of 
 time or loss of profits. A rule to enter a nonsuit was 
 
 1 Brown v. C, M. & St. P. Ry., 54 Wise. 342, 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 444 ; 
 C, H. & I. R. R. v. Eaton, 94 Ind. 474, 18 Am. & Eng. R. B. < 9b& 26 I ; T.. 
 E. & W. Ry. v. Fixe, 88 Ind. 381, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 0m. 109 j Penna. Co. 
 v. Hoagland, 78 Ind. 203,3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 4.'.(, ; S. I.'. B. v. Een- 
 drick, 40 Miss. 374; C. & I.C.R. R. v. Farrell,31 Ind. 408; B, I'. AC. By. V. 
 Pixley, 61 Ind. 22; N. O., J. & G. N. R. R. ft Bnrat, 36 Mi».660j LAG.N 
 R. R. v. Gilbert, 64 Tex. 636, 22 Am. A: ling. R. R. Cas. 406 ; LAG. N. B. ft. 
 v. Terry, 62 Tex. 380, 21 Am. & Eng. !: B. Oa 323. 
 
 * Le Blanche v. L. & N. W. Ry., 1 C. P. D. 286. 
 
 8 Murdock v. B. & A. R. R, 133 Mas- L6, 6 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 406. 
 
 * 10 Ex. 45.
 
 4G8 TORTS. 
 
 discharged, but a rule was made absolute to reduce this 
 damages to £34 19s., it being held that damages for 
 loss of profits are consequential, otherwise a passenger, 
 whose time or business is more valuable than that of 
 another, would, for precisely the same injury, receive 
 greater remuneration than another. 
 
 II. DAMAGES FOR TORTS. 
 
 In actions sounding in tort, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a fair 
 pecuniary compensation for the wrong done to him, the quantum of 
 which compensation is to be determined by the jury in the exercise 
 of a reasonable discretion, subject to review by the court, if that 
 quantum is so disproportionately large or small as to show that the 
 jury must necessarily have been influenced by improper motives, or 
 must have proceeded upon a wrong principle. 
 
 389. There was formerly no certain rule as to the 
 measure of damages in actions sounding in tort ; thus, 
 in Eavenscroft v. Eyles, 1 Wilmot, C. J., said, " in actions 
 on the case, the damages are totally uncertain and at 
 large." The modern theory is, that the damages 
 should amount to a pecuniary compensation for the 
 wrong done to the person injured. 2 It is the duty of 
 the judge, at the trial, to specifically instruct the jury as 
 to the measure of damages, and not to leave to them an 
 arbitrary discretion in the ascertainment of the amount 
 of the damages. 3 The measure of damages is to be 
 decided by the court, but the quantum of damages is to 
 be fixed by the jury, subject to the review of the court 
 
 1 2 Wils. 295. 
 
 * Bussy v. Donaldson, 4 Dall. 206 ; Walker v. Smith, 1 Wash. C. C. 152 ; 
 Lockwood v. Allen, 7 Mass. 254 ; Dexter v. Spear, 4 Mason 115 ; St. L., I. M. 
 & S. Ry. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519. 
 
 J P. R. R. v. Books, 57 Penna. St. 339 ; P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Id. 318 ; P. R. 
 R. v. Vandever, 36 Id. 298 ; P. R. R. v. Butler, 57 Id. 335 ; Mansfield C. & C. 
 Go. v. McEnery, 8 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 81.
 
 DAMAGES. 469 
 
 upon the principles hereinafter stated. 1 While the 
 measure of damages is compensation for the pecuniary 
 loss suffered by the party for whose benefit the action is 
 brought, yet the jury should take a reasonable view, 
 and should not give more than a fair compensation ; 2 
 thus, in Armstrong v. S. E. Ry., 3 Parke, J., directed 
 the jury that " it would be most unjust if, whenever an 
 accident occurs, juries were to visit the unfortunate 
 cause of it with the utmost amount which they think 
 an equivalent for the mischief done. * * * You are not 
 to consider the value of existence as if you were bar- 
 gaining with an annuity office. * * * I advise you 
 to take a reasonable view of the case, and give what you 
 consider a fair compensation ;" and in Rowley v. L. & 
 W. Ry., 4 Brett, J., reiterated these views, drawing 
 attention to the point that the same rule as to the 
 measure of damages must be applied in the cases of 
 corporate and individual defendants, and that if juries 
 do undertake to give " the fully calculated equivalent 
 of the pecuniary loss sustained by the person on whose 
 behalf the action is brought, * * * poor defendants 
 will be ruined, and the defendants most liable to such 
 actions will not be able to carry on their business upon 
 the same terms to the public as now." Nevertheless, 
 as Pollock, C. B., said, in Wilson v. N. Dock Co., 8 
 " cases of damage differ as much as the leaves of a tree 
 differ from each other, or rather the leaves of different 
 trees. No two are exactly alike, and one description 
 cannot be applicable to all. No precise positive rule 
 can embrace all cases, and, notwithstanding any rule 
 
 1 Walker v. Smith, 1 Wash. C. C. 152; I. C. R. B. v. Barron, •"> Wall, '.-(> ; 
 M. C. R. R. v. Caruth, 51 Misa. 77 ; Morris v. C, I:. & W B B., « lam '■!'< ; 
 K. P. Ry. v. Cutter, 19 Kans. 83; City of Delphi V. Lower?, 7 I 1ml. .'.'JO; O. 
 & M. R. R. v. Collarn, 73 Id. 261. 
 
 * Armstrong v. S. E. Ry., 11 Jur. 758 ; Rowley v. I- & W. By., 8 Ex. 221. 
 
 3 11 Jur. 758. 4 8 Ex. 221. & L. K. 1 Ex l'JO.
 
 470 TORTS. 
 
 of law that may be laid down, it must be admitted 
 after all, that the question of the amount of damages 
 is one for the jury, and the jury only, provided the law 
 on the subject be properly laid down by the presiding 
 judge, and then the amount of damages be left at large 
 for the jury, we apprehend that a court would not 
 interfere with their verdict because the jury had appar- 
 ently come to some compromise among themselves, and 
 bad not strictly observed the supposed rule of law." 
 
 390. It is the duty of the court to grant a new trial 
 where the damages, in the opinion of the court, are so 
 grossly excessive, that the jury must, in awarding such 
 an amount, have been influenced by improper motives, 
 or have proceeded upon a wrong principle ;* and it is also 
 the duty of the court to grant a new trial where the 
 damages are grossly inadequate; 2 and especially where 
 the small amount of the damages, considered with 
 reference to the testimony in the cause, shows that the 
 jury have shrunk from deciding the issue submitted to 
 them. 3 
 
 391. As a general rule the quantum of the damages 
 is not subject to review in an appellate court. 4 The 
 jury are not to be permitted to increase the damages 
 by including interest from the time of the injury upon 
 that sum which they determine to be the pecuniary 
 
 1 Creed v. Fisher, 9 Ex. 472; Lambkin v. S. E. Ry., 5 App. Cas. 352; Cole- 
 man v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 45 ; B.. P. & C. Ry. v. Pixley, 61 Ind. 22; O. & 
 M. R. R. v. Collarn, 73 Id. 261; Fairman v. Lauman, Id. 568; Delphi v. 
 Lowery, 74 Id. 520 ; Thurston v. Martin, 1 Mason 197 ; Knight v. P., S.& P.R. 
 R., 57 Me. 202 ; Gale v. N. Y. C & H. R. R. R., 76 N. Y. 594 ; M., K. & T. R. 
 R. v. Weaver, 16 Kans. 456 ; Berry v. C. Ry., 40 Iowa 564; Pry v. H. & St. J. 
 R. R , 73 Mo. 123 ; I. & G. N. R. R. v. Stewart, 57 Tex. 166 ; P., C. & St. L. 
 R. R. v. Sponier, 85 Ind 165, 8 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 453. 
 
 J Phillips v. S. W. Ry., 4 Q. B. D. 406. 
 
 3 Springett v. Ball, 4 F. & F. 472. 
 
 * W. Ry. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454; W., St. L. & P. Ry. v. Peyton, 106 
 111. 524 ; I. C. Ry. v. Frelka, 110 Id. 498 ; Pabst v. B. & O. R. R., 2 MacArthur 
 (D. C.) 42.
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 471 
 
 compensation due by the defendant to the plaintiff; 1 
 nor are the jury to be permitted to include the plain- 
 tiff's counsel fees in the damages awarded to him. 
 
 III. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 
 
 Exemplary or punitive damages can be recovered where the wrong 
 has been done under circumstances of wanton violence and ojypres- 
 sion on the part of the railway, as evidenced by the character of the 
 act, and by the fact that the particular act has been done under an 
 antecedent authorization, or has been subsequently ratified, either 
 expressly, or impliedly by the retention in the service of the servant 
 whose wrongdoing has caused the injury. 
 
 392. Where the wrong has been done under circum- 
 stances indicating wantonness, violence, and oppression 
 upon the part of the wrongdoer, exemplary damages 
 are recoverable; 2 but such damages are not recoverable 
 against a railway unless the injury is the result of the 
 authorized or ratified misconduct of the servants of the 
 railway. 3 There are some cases which hold that where 
 a person is injured by gross negligence on the part of 
 the railway, he may recover exemplary damages; 1 but 
 
 1 Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434; Weir v. Alleghany, 95 Penna. St. 413; 
 P. S. Ry. v. Taylor, 104 Id. 300; C. R. R. v. Sears, 6ti Ga. 409. 
 
 2 Bell v. Midland Ry., 10 C. B. N. S. 287, 100 E. C. L. ; Emblen p. Myers, 6 
 H. & N. 54; Tracy v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 81 ; P. R. R. v. Kelley, 3] Penna. 
 St. 372 ; P. R. R. v. Books, 57 !d. 339. 
 
 3 M. & St. P. Ry. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489; Day ti.Woodworth, L3 How 871 
 P , W. & B. R. R. v. Quigley, 21 Id. 213 ; W. U. T. < io. v. Eyster, 91 I r. 8. 495, 
 note; N. O., J. & G. N. E. R. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660; B.&O. R. R. v. Blocber, 27 
 Md. 277; Goddard v. G. T. By., 59 Me. 202; C. 8. Ry. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321, 
 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 30; I. & St. L. R. R. P.Cobb, 68 111. 58; 1 1 
 
 M., K. & T. R. R., 59 Mo. 27, 8 Am Ry. Rep. 462; K. P. Ry. v. Lundin, 8 
 Colo. 94; L. K. & GL 8. R. R. v. Guinan, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 98; 8. R. R. v. Ken- 
 drick, 40 Miss. 371; Ackerson v. E. R. R, 8 Vroom 254; Porter v. Same, Id. 
 2dl ; C, St. L. & N. O. R. R. v. Bcnrr, 59 Miss. 456, 6 Am. & Eng R i: I as. 
 341 ; P.,F. W. & C. R. R. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. L57 ; Hamilton >■■ Third \v.-. 
 R. R., 53 N. Y. 25. 
 
 * Hopkins v. A.& St. L R. U, 36 \. H. 9; A. & Q W. Ry. v. Dnnn, 19 
 Ohio St. 162; M. & M. R. R. v. Ashcroft, 48 Ala. 15; Varillat v. S. <). A 0,
 
 472 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. 
 
 considering the want of any intelligible distinction be- 
 tween negligence and gross negligence, and bearing in 
 mind the principles hereinbefore stated, which deter- 
 mine the responsibility of railways for the acts of their 
 servants, the better doctrine is that a railway is not to 
 be held liable in exemplary damages for injuries caused 
 by the negligence of its servant, unless it be shown that 
 the servant's act was wilful in its character, and was either 
 authorized or ratified by the railway, nevertheless con- 
 ceding that such authorization or ratification can be evi- 
 denced either by an expressed order to do the act, or an 
 expressed approval of its commission, or by an antece- 
 dent retention of a servant of known incompetency, or 
 by a subsequent retention or promotion of the negligent 
 servant. 1 
 
 [V. THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN CASES OF INJURIES 
 NOT CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 The measure of damages in case of injuries not causing death is, in 
 general, compensation for bodily and mental pain and suffering, 
 present and future, and for loss of earnings since the injury and 
 for loss of future earning power, and reimbursement of actual ex- 
 penditure, or legal liability incurred, for medical treatment and 
 nursing. 
 
 393. Actions sounding in tort for injuries to the per- 
 son being founded, not upon the damage only, but upon 
 the unlawful act and the consequent damage, the plain- 
 tiff cannot bring more than one action therefor against 
 the same defendant, and therein he may recover both 
 
 R. R , 10 La. An. 88; K. C. R. R. v Dills, 4 Bush (Ky.) 593; Taylor v. G T. 
 Ry., 48 N. H. 305 ; L. & N. R. R. v. McCoy, 81 Ky. 403, 15 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas. 277 ; C. St. R. R. v. Steen, 42 Ark. 321, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 30. 
 
 ' Cle S horn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 56 N. Y. 44 ; Hagan v. P. & W. R. R., 
 3 R. I. 88.
 
 DAMAGES. 473 
 
 present and prospective damages. 1 Upon this principle 
 the plaintiff may recover for future physical suffering 
 and loss of earning power where the apprehended con- 
 sequences are such as in the ordinary course of nature 
 are reasonably certain to ensue, but there can be no re- 
 covery in damages for merely possible consequences. 2 
 The mental suffering for which the plaintiff can recover 
 is that which is connected with and follows the injury ; 3 
 and the plaintiff may recover for any injury to health 
 resulting from exposure after the accident; 4 and in 
 proof of his loss of earnings since the injury, the plain- 
 tiff may show that he was engaged in a particular busi- 
 ness, and that the necessary effect of his injury was to 
 disable him from attending to his business, and thereby 
 cause a pecuniary loss to him ; 5 but if the business con- 
 ducted by the person injured be prohibited by law, he 
 cannot recover for his inability to continue it. 6 
 
 394. It is in general held that the damages recover- 
 able include compensation for bodily and mental pain 
 and suffering, present and future; reimbursement of 
 actual expenditure for, or legal liability incurred for, 
 medical treatment and nursing ; and compensation for 
 loss of earnings since the injury, and for loss of future 
 earning power. 7 
 
 1 Hodsoll v. Stallebrass, 11 Ad. & El. 301, 39 E. C. L. 
 
 J Strohm v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R, 96 N. Y. 305 ; Delie v. C. & N. W. 1 ty, 
 51 Wise. 400; Curtis v. R. & S. R. R, 18 N. Y. 534; Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R, 
 49 Id. 45; Fry v. D. & S. W. Ry., 45 Iowa 416; B. S. It. It. V. Hams, 67 
 Ala. 6. 
 
 3 I. & St. L. R. R. v. Stables, 62 111. 313; Porter v. II. & St. J. It. It., 71 
 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. R. It. Cas. 44. 
 
 * Ehrgott v. The Mayor, 96 N. Y. 264. 
 
 5 Wade v. Leroy, 20 How. 34; Nebraska City v. Campbell, 2 Black (S. C.) 
 590. 
 
 6 Jacques v. B. H. R. R., 41 Conn. 61. 
 
 7 Phillips v. S. W. Ry., 4 Q. B. D. 406, 5 Id. 85, n c. 1'. 1 1 ,280 ; Lain- v. 
 Colder, 8 Penna. St. 479; P. It. R. v. Allen, 63 U. 276; P. R. R V. Boob, 57 
 Id. 339; P. & O. Canal Co. v. Graham, 6:i Id. 290; I. C. R R V. Barron, 5
 
 471 INJURIES NOT CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 395. The damages awarded to the injured plaintiff 
 are not to be diminished by his receipts from an acci- 
 dental insurance policy, because the insurer's contract 
 of indemnity, and not the contingency of the accident, 
 is the cause of his receiving the avails of the policy; 1 
 nor are the damages to be diminished by the injured 
 person's continued receipt of full wages from his em- 
 ployer during the period of his incapacity to labour. 2 
 
 396. There is a recent English case which illustrates 
 the rule of law as to damages for personal injuries, and 
 which is worthy of careful consideration. In Phillips v. 
 S. W. Hy., 3 the plaintiff was an eminent London phy- 
 sician of middle age and of robust health, making from 
 the practice of his profession an average income of 
 £5,000. Having been injured in a railway accident, 
 he underwent a great amount of pain and suffering; at 
 the time of the first trial, sixteen months after the acci- 
 dent, his condition was apparently helpless and hopeless, 
 and he had then incurred expenses for medical treat- 
 ment amounting to £1,000. Field, J., in substance 
 directed the jury not to attempt to give an exact equiv- 
 alent for the injury sustained, but to bring their reason- 
 able common sense to bear, and to consider that while 
 the plaintiff might die at any time, and while many 
 things might happen to prevent his continuing in prac- 
 
 WaU. 90 ; Eansom v. N. Y. & E. R. E., 15 N. Y. 415 ; Curtis v. E. & S. E. E., 
 18 Id. 534; S. & N. A. E. E. v. McLendon, 63 Ala. 266; Whalen v. St. L., K. 
 C. & N. Ey., 60 Mo. 323; O. & M. Ry. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317 ; P., C. & St. 
 L. Ey. v. Sponier, 85 Id. 165, 8 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 453; Porter v. II. & 
 St. J. R. R., 71 Mo. 66, 2 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 44; Totten v. P. E. E., 11 
 Fed. Eep. 564; St. L., I. M. & S. Ey. v. Cantrell, 37 Ark. 519, 8 Am. & Eng. 
 E. R. Cas. 198; Klutts v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ey., 75 Mo. 642, 11 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 639 ; Davis v. C. E. E., 60 Ga. 329 ; W. & A. E. E. v. Drysdale, 51 
 Id. 644; P. E. E. v. Spicker, 105 Penna. St. 142; Geveke v. G. E. & I. Ey., 
 Mich. , 22 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 551. 
 
 1 r.radburn v. G.W. Ey., L. E. 10 Ex. 1 ; B. & O. R. R. tt Wightman, 29 
 Grat. 431. 
 
 a O & M. Ry. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317. 8 4 Q. B. D. 406.
 
 DAMAGES. 475 
 
 tice, yet, on the other hand, he might continue to live 
 for many years, and that they must give him fair com- 
 pensation for the pain, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment, 
 loss of income up to the time of the trial and prospective 
 loss of income in the future. The jury having found 
 for the plaintiff in £7,000, the plaintiff moved for a 
 new trial for insufficiency of damages and also on the 
 ground of misdirection as having led to an insufficient 
 assessment of damages. In the Court of Queen's Bench 
 it was held, Cockburn, C. J., delivering judgment, that 
 Field, J., had correctly directed the jury, but the rule 
 for a new trial was made absolute upon the other 
 ground, the Lord Chief Justice, after referring to the 
 rule laid down by Brett, J., in Rowley v. L. & N. W. 
 By., 1 saying: "we think that a jury cannot be said to 
 take a reasonable view of the case unless they consider 
 and take into account all the heads of damage in respect 
 of which the plaintiff complaining of a personal injury is 
 entitled to compensation. These are the bodily injury 
 sustained, the pain undergone, the effect on the health 
 of the sufferer, according to its degree and its probable 
 duration as likely to be temporary or permanent, the 
 expenses incidental to attempts to effect a cure or to 
 lessen the amount of injury, the pecuniary loss sus- 
 tained through inability to attend to a profession or 
 business as to which again the amount of injury may 
 be of a temporary character or may be such as to in- 
 capacitate the party for the remainder of his Life. I f a 
 jury have taken all these elements of damage into con- 
 sideration, and have awarded wli.it they deemed to be 
 fair and reasonable compensation under all the circum- 
 stances of the case, a court ought not, unless under very 
 exceptional circumstances, to disturb their verdict." 
 
 1 L. R. 8 Ex. 221.
 
 476 INJURIES NOT CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 He distinguished the cases of Randall v. Hay ward, 1 and 
 Forsdike v. Stone, 2 upon the ground that they were ac- 
 tions for slander in which the jury may consider, not 
 only what the plaintiff ought to receive, but also what 
 the defendant ought to pay, and he added: "we think 
 the rule contended for has no application in a case of 
 personal injury, and that it is perfectly competent to us if 
 we think the damages unreasonably small to order a 
 new trial at the instance of the plaintiff. There can be 
 no doubt of the power of the court to grant a new trial 
 where, in such an action, the damages are excessive. 
 There can be no reason why the same principle should 
 not be applied where they are insufficient to meet the 
 justice of the case." The defendant having appealed, 
 the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the 
 Queen's Bench Division was delivered by James, L. J. 3 
 The Lord Justice said: "we agree that judges have no 
 right to overrule a verdict of the jury as to the amount of 
 damages merely because they take a different view, and 
 think that if they had been the jury they would have 
 given more or would have given less, still the verdicts 
 of juries as to the amount of damages are subject, and^ 
 must, for the sake of justice, be subject to the supervision 
 of a court of first instance, and, if necessary, of a court 
 of appeal in this way; that is to say, if, in the judgment 
 of the court, the damages are unreasonably large, or 
 unreasonably small, then the court is bound to send the 
 matter for reconsideration by another jury." The di- 
 rection of Field, J., was substantially approved. The 
 case was tried a second time before Coleridge, L. C. J., 4 
 who instructed the jury, that while it was fair and 
 reasonable that the defendant should pay to the plain- 
 tiff, by way of compensation for the injury which he 
 
 1 5 Bing. N. C. 424. » L. E. 3 C. P. 607. 
 
 » 5 Q. B. D. 85. * 5 C. P. D. 280.
 
 DAMAGES. 477 
 
 had sustained, the amount of compensation for it was to 
 be such as the jury might think would be fair and 
 reasonable, and that there must be taken into account 
 as elements of compensation the bodily pain and suffer- 
 ing which the plaintiff had endured, the loss of his pro- 
 fessional income from the time of the accident to the 
 time of the trial, and the loss of future income, basing 
 the estimate upon the proved net professional income of 
 the plaintiff, but remembering that that amount in- 
 cluded certain large presents or special fees. It had 
 been proven that the plaintiff, at the time of the acci- 
 dent, was in the receipt of a private income irrespective 
 of his professional earnings amounting to between £3,000 
 and £4,000 a year, and in his summing up the Lord 
 Chief Justice omitted to refer to that source of income. 
 The jury found a verdict of £16,000 for the plaintiff, 
 and the defendant having moved for a new trial, on the 
 ground of misdirection, the Common Pleas Division re- 
 fused the rule, Grove, J., saying: "the plaintiff is en- 
 titled to receive at the hands of the jury compensation 
 for the pain and bodily suffering which he has under- 
 gone, for the expense which he has been put to for 
 medical and other necessary attendance, and for such 
 pecuniary loss as the jury (having regard to his ability 
 and means of earning money by his profession at the 
 time) may think him reasonably entitled to." The de- 
 fendant then took the case to the Court of Appeal, 
 which sustained the court below in its refusal of a m-w 
 trial, Bramwell, L. J., saying: "I have tried, as judge, 
 more than a hundred actions of this kind, and the di- 
 rection which I, in common with other judges, have 
 been accustomed to give the jury has been to the fol- 
 lowing effect: 'You must give the plaint id' a compensa- 
 tion for his pecuniary loss; you must give him a 
 compensation for his pain and bodily suffering; of
 
 478 INJURIES NOT CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 course it is almost impossible for you to give to an in- 
 jured man what can be strictly called a compensation, 
 but you must take a reasonable view of the case and 
 must consider under all the circumstances what is a fair 
 amount to be awarded to him.' I have never known a 
 direction in that form to be questioned. * * * It is 
 argned that it lias an unjust operation for the following 
 reason : two passengers are carried upon the same journey 
 for the same fare. If one of them is injured he will ob- 
 tain £10,000 damages against the company, whereas 
 if the other meets with an accident he will obtain only 
 £1,000. This result may be unreasonable as regards 
 the passengers inter se, but it is not unreasonable as be- 
 tween the company and the public. The company have 
 taken their powers upon certain conditions, and one of 
 them is that if they break their contracts to carry safely 
 and securely, (which may happen without any moral 
 blame attaching to them), they shall make adequate 
 compensation to the person injured. It may be that 
 the passenger who recovers £10,000 has paid too little 
 for his ticket, and that the passenger who recovers 
 £1,000 has paid too much; nevertheless together they 
 have paid what is a compensation to the company for 
 the risk which they undertake." Brett, L.. J., said: 
 "the action is for breach of a contract to carry a pas- 
 senger safely and securely, and the only damages which 
 can be obtained are damages for the breach of that con- 
 tract. The fundamental proposition, no doubt, is that 
 the plaintiff is to receive such damages as will compen- 
 sate him for the injury ensuing from the breach of the 
 contract. That injury is of a complicated nature, the 
 plaintiff has received a bodily hurt and he has also sus- 
 tained a pecuniary loss." * * * Lord Coleridge "in 
 effect told the jury that the compensation was to be such 
 as they might think fair and reasonable, but that they
 
 DAMAGES. 479 
 
 must not attempt to give an absolutely perfect compen- 
 sation with respect to the pecuniary loss. I apprehend 
 that both these propositions are correct, and that the 
 reason why this general mode of leaving the question to 
 the jury is right is that human ingenuity has not been 
 able to devise a more correct proposition, and that if the 
 judge tries to make a perfect proposition he either states 
 something which is wrong, or omits to state something 
 which ought to be stated." The Lord Justice then re- 
 ferred to Kowley v. L. & N. W. Ey., 1 and added : " it 
 has been long recognized as a proper mode of summing 
 up to tell the jury to give such compensation as under 
 all the circumstances they may think fair and reason- 
 able, and at the same time, in order to assist them, to 
 point out some circumstances which they ought to con- 
 sider. When the jury have to give compensation for 
 the loss of a professional or trading income, the chief 
 points to be considered are the amount of that income 
 and of what it is made up. It has been in effect sug- 
 gested by the counsel for the defendants that the amount 
 of the income at the time of the accident ought not to 
 be taken into account. This suggestion seems to me to 
 be erroneous. * * * If no accident had happened, 
 nevertheless many circumstances might have happened 
 to prevent the plaintiff from earning his professional in- 
 come. He may be disabled by illness; he is Bubjeci to 
 the ordinary accidents and vicissitudes of life, and if all 
 those circumstances of which no evidence can be given 
 are looked at it would be impossible to exactly estimate 
 them. Yet if the jury wholly pass over them liny will 
 go wrong, because those accidents and vicissitudes ought 
 to be taken into account. It is true tint the chances 
 of life cannot be accurately calculated, but the judge 
 must tell the jury to consider them in order thai they 
 
 1 L. K. 8 Ex. 221.
 
 4S0 DUTY OF PERSON INJURED. 
 
 may give a fair and reasonable compensation. In my 
 opinion it would be right that a jury should give the 
 same amount to a workingman and to a person of great 
 wealth for personal injury, if that is the same, and if 
 the accompanying suffering is the same, and that each 
 should receive the expenses which he has properly in- 
 curred, but that in estimating the pecuniary loss each 
 should receive as nearly as possible only the amount of 
 the loss which he has actually sustained." Cotton, L. 
 J., concurred. As to the condition of the plaintiff's 
 health at the time of the second trial and the prospect 
 of his ultimate recovery the case as reported is ambig- 
 uous. Lord Coleridge referred in his direction to the 
 jury to the "probability that for a year and a half or 
 two years more the plaintiff would be debarred from 
 following his profession." Grove, J., in refusing the 
 rule for a new trial, said : "the injury which he has sus- 
 tained will, in all human probability, deprive him of 
 the power of ever resuming his practice." 
 
 The person injured is bound to exercise for his cure and treatment the 
 care of a prudent man, 
 
 397. The party injured is bound to take such care 
 of himself after the accident as a prudent man would 
 take under the circumstances, but he is not bound to 
 employ a surgeon of the highest skill, nor is he an in- 
 surer of the success of the medical treatment; 1 yet 
 where the person injured had disregarded the advice of 
 his medical attendants to abstain from business for two 
 years, and had, because of such disobedience, become 
 permanently incapacited from doing business, whereas, 
 
 1 Klutts v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 75 Mo. 642, 1 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 639 ; 
 Nagel v. M. P. Ry., Id. 653, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 702 ; Sauter v. N. Y. C. 
 & H. R. R. R., 66 N. Y. 50 ; Lyons v. E. Ry., 57 Id. 489 ; P. P. C. Co. v. Bluhm, 
 109 111. 20, 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 87 ; Allender v. C, R. I. & P. R. R., 37 
 Iowa 264.
 
 DAMAGES TO HUSBAND, ETC. 481 
 
 if he had rested, he would probably have regained his 
 health, the Common Pleas refused to disturb a verdict 
 in his favour for compensatory damages. 1 
 
 The measure of damages in a husband's suit for injuries to his wife 
 is compensation for the loss of his wife's society and services, and 
 reimbursement for the necessary expenses of her medical treatment 
 
 398. Where a husband sues for injuries to the person 
 of his wife, he is entitled to recover for the loss of his 
 wife's society and services and for the necessary ex- 
 penses of her medical treatment. 2 Where the suit is 
 brought on the wife's behalf to recover for her personal 
 injuries, there can be no recovery for any loss which 
 the husband may have sustained, and for which he 
 alone could bring suit, such as a diminution of the 
 wife's earning power, or the expenses of her medical 
 treatment, but the recovery can only be for the physical 
 injury done to the wife. 3 
 
 TJie measure of damages in a parent's or master's suit for injuries to 
 his child or servant is compensation for loss of service during the 
 minority of the child or the period of service, and reimbursement 
 for the necessary expenses of medical treatment. 
 
 399. Where a parent or master sues for injuries done 
 to the person of a child or servant, the plaintiff can 
 only recover for the loss of service during the period 
 of service, or during the minority of the child, and for 
 
 1 Saunders v. L. & N. W. By., 8 0. B. N. S. 887, 98 E. C. L. 
 
 2 King v. Thompson, 87 Penna. St. 365; P. B. R. v. Goodman, 62 1. 1 829 , 
 Pack v. The Mayor, 3 Comst. 489 ; Xcir v. W. P. Iiy., 1 2 M<>. Lpp. 86 ; < iregin 
 v. B. C. R. B., 83 N.Y. 595. 
 
 3 Dengate v. Gardiner, 4 M. A. W. 6; King v. Thompson, 87 Penna. M 
 
 B. C P. Ry. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74; Fuller p. X. R. U.. 21 I fcmn. 557 ; V < '. By. 
 v. Mills, 61 Md. 355, 19 Am. & Eng. B. B. Gas. 160; Klein <■. Jewett, 26 X 
 J. Eq. 474; Tuttle v. C, B. I. & P. Ry., 42 [owa r .is. 
 31
 
 482 DAMAGES 
 
 actual expenditure and legal liability incurred for the 
 medical treatment and care of the child or servant. 1 
 
 V. THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN CASES OF INJURIES 
 CAUSING DEATH. 
 
 In actions to recover damages for injuries causing death, if the statute 
 authorizing the action does not prescribe any other measure of dam- 
 ages, the damages are in general to be assessed on the basis of the 
 pecuniary loss caused by the death to the persons for whose benefit 
 the action is brought. 
 
 400. In actions to recover for death the terms of the 
 statute authorizing the action are in general decisive 
 of the right to sue and the measure of damages. In 
 case of death or personal injury, resulting from negli- 
 gence on the part of the railway, where the parties for 
 whose benefit the action is brought fail to show any 
 pecuniary injury to themselves, nominal damages are 
 recoverable. 2 Of course, any pecuniary loss to the 
 person for whose benefit the action is brought and 
 directly resulting from the death should be taken into 
 consideration by the jury ; thus, in Pym v. G. N. Ky., 3 
 the plaintiff sued as the widow and administratrix of 
 her husband, who had never been in any profession or 
 business and was of independent property. The de- 
 ceased by will had so settled his property, which pro- 
 duced an income, of £4,000 annually, that in case of 
 his death £800 was to be annually paid to his younger 
 children, and the rest to the eldest son, charged with 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Kell y, 31 Penna. St. 372 ; Frick v. St. L., K. C. & N. R. R., 75 
 Mo. 542; Smith v. St. J. & II. R. R., 55 Mo. 556; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. 
 Freeman, 36 Ark. 41. 
 
 2 A., T. & S. F. R. R. v.Weber, 33 Kans. 543, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 418 ; Ihl v. 42d St. R. R., 47 N. Y. 317 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Shannon, 43 111. 338 ; 
 (', & N. W. R. R. v. Swett, 45 Id. 197 ; Chicago v. Schollen, 75 Id. 468. 
 
 • 2 B. & S. 750, 110 E. C. L. ; 4 B. & S. 396, 116 E. C. L.
 
 IN CASE OF DEATH. 483 
 
 the payment of the £800 and of a jointure to the widow 
 of £1,000. At the trial, Cockburn, C. J., directed the 
 jury: "if, after making allowance for what the de- 
 ceased would naturally have expended on himself, they 
 thought that a portion of his income beyond the £1,800 
 a year, to which his widow and eight younger children 
 became entitled at his death, would have been from 
 time to time set aside by him for the benefit of his 
 family, or appropriated to their education and advance- 
 ment in life, and would thus have secured to them ad- 
 vantages, which by his death they had lost, that would 
 constitute such pecuniary loss and damage as would 
 enable them to find a verdict for the plaintiff." The 
 jury found for the plaintiff in £13,000, £1,000 for the 
 widow and £1,500 for each of the younger children. 
 The defendant having obtained a rule in pursuance of 
 leave reserved to enter a verdict for the defendant, or a 
 nonsuit on the ground that the evidence established no 
 cause of action, or for a new trial because of excessive 
 damages, the rule on the former ground was dis- 
 charged, and on the latter ground the verdict having, 
 by consent of the plaintiff, been reduced to £9,000, that 
 rule was also discharged. The defendant having ap- 
 pealed to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the judg- 
 ment of the Queen's Bench was affirmed, it being held 
 that an action under the statute is maintainable where 
 the decedent could have maintained no action if lie had 
 survived the injury, the condition in the statute haying 
 reference not to the nature of the loss or the injury 
 sustained, but to the circumstances under which I In- 
 bodily injury arose, and the nature of the wrongful act, 
 neglect, or default complained of; and thai while the 
 damages must be based on a pecuniary loss, the ex- 
 tinction of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary ;i<l- 
 vantase from the continuance of the life of the decedent
 
 48-1 DAMAGES 
 
 is a sufficient cause of action, and that the statute giving 
 a remedy to individuals, not to a class, although the 
 death of the decedent caused no loss of property to his 
 family, yet as that death changed the mode of distribu- 
 tion of the income of that property, those whose reason- 
 able expectations of pecuniary advantage were disap- 
 pointed by that death were entitled to be compensated. 
 So, in Rowley v. L. & N. W. Ry., 1 the plaintiff sued as 
 executrix of an attorney who had covenanted to pay 
 his mother £200 annually during his and her joint 
 lives. No question was raised as to the damages re- 
 coverable for the widow and the children. At the time 
 of the decedent's death he was forty years of age, and 
 his mother sixty-one years of age. An accountant 
 having testified from the Carlisle tables as to the prob- 
 able duration of the son's and mother's lives, and as to 
 the cost to the mother of an annuity secured by the 
 government of £200 for her life, Kelly, C. B., in- 
 structed the jury that they might, if they thought 
 proper, calculate the damages which the mother was 
 entitled to recover by ascertaining what sum of money 
 would purchase an annuity of £200 for a person sixty- 
 one years of age, according to the average duration of 
 human life. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff 
 for £6,200, apportioning to the mother £1,200, and 
 the balance to the widow and children. The case 
 having been carried to the Court of Exchequer Cham- 
 ber by bill of exceptions, a venire de novo was granted 
 on the ground of misdirection, inasmuch as that which 
 the mother lost by her son's death was an annuity, not 
 for her life, but for the joint lives of her son and her- 
 self, which was of obviously less value than an annuity 
 for her life only, and the annuity was secured only by 
 
 1 L. R. 8 Ex. 221.
 
 IN CASE OF DEATH. 486 
 
 the personal covenant of the deceased, whereas the tes- 
 timony referred to a government annuity. Brett, J., in 
 delivering judgment, said: "it seems to me that the 
 Lord Chief Baron did leave it open to the jury to sup- 
 pose, that they might properly assess as the proper 
 damages a sum of money which would be the present 
 price or value of an annuity which would give to the 
 mother an annual income equal to that she would have 
 received from her son for the probable duration of time 
 during which the covenanted annuity would have been 
 paid to her if her son had not been killed. That is, in 
 other words, to hold that the damages in such case may 
 be the ' fully calculated equivalent of the pecuniary 
 loss suffered by the person on whose behalf the action 
 is brought.' If juries do give such damages, poor de- 
 fendants will be ruined, and the defendants most liable 
 to such actions will not be able to carry on their busi- 
 ness upon the same terms to the public as now." And 
 after referring to Blake v. Midland By., and to Aims- 
 worth v. S. E. By., he quoted the usual direction, and 
 added: "I have a clear conviction that any verdict 
 founded on the idea of giving damages to the utmost 
 amount, which would be an equivalent for the pecuniary 
 injury, would be unjust. Founding my opinion on that 
 conviction, on the declaration of it by Parke, J., and 
 on the ordinary directions of judges, which directions 
 have not been for years challenged, I conclude thai the 
 direction that I have enunciated is the legal and the 
 only legal direction. A direction which leaves ii open 
 to the jury to give the present value of an annuity 
 equal in annual amount to the income losl for a period 
 supposed to be equal to thai for which it would have 
 continued if there had been do accidenl is a direction, 
 as it seems to me, leaving it open to a jury to give the 
 utmost amount which they may think an equivalent,
 
 4S6 DAMAGES 
 
 and for the pecuniary mischief done, and sucL a direc- 
 tion is a misdirection according to law." 
 
 401. Therefore, as a general rule, the damages must 
 be so limited as to give not more than a compensation 
 for the pecuniary loss suffered by the plaintiff, or by 
 the persons for whose benefit the action is brought. 1 
 The term " pecuniary loss" is not to be found in Lord 
 Campbell's Act, nor in some of the statutes in pari 
 materia which have been enacted in the several States 
 of the United States, but that term has been judicially 
 adopted, not only to express the character of that loss 
 to the beneficial plaintiffs which is the foundation of 
 their right of recovery, but also to discriminate between 
 a material loss which is susceptible of a pecuniary valu- 
 ation, and that inestimable loss of the society and com- 
 panionship of the deceased relative, upon which, in the 
 nature of things, it is not possible to set a pecuniary 
 valuation. In Lett v. St. L. & O. Ey., 2 Gait, J., in a 
 very few words clearly shows that the term " material," 
 rather than " pecuniary," expresses with accuracy the 
 exact nature of that loss which can be compensated 
 under Lord Campbell's Act and the statutes which have 
 followed it. 
 
 In the term "pecuniary loss" there is included the loss to the person 
 for whose benefit the action is brought, of a reasonable expectation 
 of a pecuniary gain from the continuance of the life of the person 
 killed. 
 
 402. It is well settled that the term " pecuniary loss " 
 includes, not only the loss of any money which the 
 
 1 Blake v. M. Ey., IS Q. B. 93, 83 E. C. L. ; Duckworth v. Johnson, 4 H. & 
 N. 653; Galliard V L. & Y. Ry., 12 L. T. 356; Braniall v. Lees, 29 Id. 82; 
 N. P. R. R. v. Robinson, 44 Penna. St. 175 ; L., C. & L. E. R, v. Case, 9 Bush 
 (Ky.) 728; I; & G. N. R. R. v. Kindred, 57 Tex. 491, 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. 
 Cas.649; Lett v. St. L. & O. Ry., 11 Ont. Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 165 ; I. C. R. R. v. Weldon, 52 111. 290 ; Needham v. G. T. R. R., 38 Yt. 294. 
 
 2 11 Ont. Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 165.
 
 TO PARENTS FOR CHILD'S DEATH. 487 
 
 deceased was under a legal liability to pay to the per- 
 son or persons for whose benefit the action has been 
 brought, but also the loss of a reasonable expectation 
 upon the part of those persons of a pecuniary benefit 
 to them from the continuance of the life of the de- 
 ceased. 
 
 403. This reasonable latitude of construction has 
 been applied in the cases where a parent sues for the 
 death of a child ; thus, in Franklin v. S. E. By., 1 the 
 plaintiff sued as administrator to recover for the death 
 of his son twenty-one years of age, who had been in the 
 habit of assisting the plaintiff in certain work, for 
 which the plaintiff received three shillings and six pence 
 weekly. Bramwell, B., left it to the jury to say whether 
 the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of any, and 
 what, pecuniary benefit, if any, from the continuance 
 of his son's life, and this direction was approved by the 
 court in banc, Pollock, C. B., saying : " it is also clear 
 that the damages are not to be given merely in refer- 
 ence to the loss of a legal right, for they are to be dis- 
 tributed among relations only, and not to all individuals 
 sustaining such a loss, and accordingly the rule lias 
 not been to ascertain what benefit could have been 
 enforced by the claimants had the deceased lived, and 
 give damages ascertained thereby. * * * Nothing 
 remains except that they should be calculated in refer- 
 ence to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit 
 from the continuance of his son's life, and, if so, to w bat 
 extent were the questions left, in this case, to the jury. 
 * * * We do not say that actual benefit Bhould have 
 been derived, a reasonable expectation is enough, and 
 such reasonable expectation may exist, though from the 
 father not being in need the son had never done any- 
 thing for him. On the other hand, a jury certainly 
 
 13H.&K211.
 
 4S8 DAMAGES 
 
 ought not to make a guess in the mutter, but ought to 
 be satisfied that there has been a loss of sensible and 
 appreciable pecuniary benefit which may have been 
 reasonably expected from the continuance of the life. 
 We think, therefore, the action maintainable." So, in 
 Dalton v. S. E. Ry., 1 the plaintiffs, a father and a mother, 
 sued for the death of their son, twenty-seven years of 
 age, unmarried, but not living at home, earning about 
 £3 weekly, and accustomed to visit his parents at short 
 intervals, and to make them presents averaging about 
 £20 a year. Byles, J., directed the jury that the plain- 
 tiffs were entitled to recover under the statute, and sug- 
 gested that the jury should find specially the sums to 
 which the plaintiffs were entitled for their pecuniary 
 loss, and for the decedent's funeral expenses and the 
 plaintiff's mourning clothes. The jury having found a 
 verdict as to the pecuniary loss of £120, and as to the 
 mourning and funeral expenses £25, a rule for a new 
 trial was discharged as to the £120, and made absolute 
 as to the £25, Willes, J., saying, "the reasonable 
 expectation of pecuniary advantage of the relations 
 remaining alive may be taken into account by the jury, 
 and damages may be given in respect to the expecta- 
 tion being disappointed, and the probable pecuniary 
 loss thereby occasioned." So, in Duckworth v. John- 
 son, 2 the plaintiff sued for the death of his son, fourteen 
 years of age, who had earned 4s. a week for a year or 
 two, which had gone into the common family stock, 
 but who, at the time of his death, was out of employ- 
 ment, and it was held, that while no action under the 
 statute can be maintained unless the plaintiff proves 
 actual damage, that here there was sufficient actual 
 damage in the loss to the father of the gain which 
 he reasonably might anticipate for his boy's future 
 
 1 4 C. B. N. S. 296, 93 E. C. L. * 4 H. & N. 653
 
 TO PARENTS FOR CHILD'S DEATH. 4S9 
 
 labour. So, in Bramall v. Lees, 1 a father having, at the 
 trial before Crompton, J., recovered a verdict of £15 
 for the death of a daughter twelve years of age, who 
 had never earned any money, but who might, if she 
 had lived, have obtained wage-earning work in a fac- 
 tory, a rule for a new trial was granted upon a motion 
 on behalf of the defendant, but was not pressed to argu- 
 ment, and in the later case of Chapman v. Both-well, 2 
 Crompton, J., referring to Bramall v. Lees, said that 
 the court were of opinion that the rule in that case 
 ought not to be granted, and that they only granted it 
 because of a doubt which he entertained, but that at 
 the end of the discussion he was satisfied that his doubt 
 was not well grounded. 3 
 
 404. The cases in the United States generally hold, 
 following in the line of Bramall v. Lees, that it is not 
 necessary for a parent, in order to establish a reason- 
 able probability of gain from the continued life of a 
 minor child, to show that the child ever has earned 
 anything, but that the value of the child's probable 
 future services is a matter of conjecture, and may be 
 determined by the jury without the testimony of wit- 
 nesses as to the value of such services. 4 Of course, the 
 jury in estimating the pecuniary loss to the parents of 
 a minor child, must take into consideration the fact 
 that the parents, if they may reasonably anticipate a 
 gain from the child's labour, must also defray (he 
 
 J 29L. T. 111. ■ 4 Jut. N. S. 1181. 
 
 8 See, also, Hetherington v. N. E. Ry., 9 Q B. D. L60; Condon p. G. S. & 
 W. Ry., 1G Irish C. L. 415; cf. Boulter v. Webster, 13 W. R. 289 ; Bj I 
 N. E. Ry, 32 L. T. N. S. 199. 
 
 * Oldfield v. N. Y. & II. R. R., 8 E. I>. Smith l"::. M N. Y. 810; Drew t>. 
 Sixth Ave. R. R.,26 Id. 49; Ilil v. 42d St. R. R., 47 [d.817; Chicago v. 
 Major, 18 111. 349; Chicago v. Bcholton, 76 1«1. 469; I . R. & Bar- 
 
 ker, 39 Ark. 491, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 196; Potter < C. A V W. Ry, 
 22 Wise. G15 ; Seaman v. F. L. & T. Co., 15 Id. 578.
 
 490 DAMAGES- 
 
 necessary cost of the child's maintenance. 1 Where the 
 child is of age at the time of his or her death, or if 
 under age, has not been living under the parental roof, 
 the burden is on the plaintiff of proving a reasonable 
 expectation of his receiving a pecuniary benefit from 
 the continued life of the child ; 2 but where the child 
 lives under the parental roof, and is under age at the 
 time of his death, there is a presumption of pecuniary 
 loss to his parents resulting from his death. 
 
 405. Where a husband sues for his wife's death, or 
 where children sue for their mother's death, the hus- 
 band and children are entitled to recover, not only for 
 any pecuniary loss directly resulting from the death of 
 the wife and mother, as, for instance, where she is in 
 receipt of an annuity which has been appropriated to 
 the payment of family expenses, and which terminates 
 with her death, but also for the material loss resulting 
 from the deprivation of her services to her family. 3 
 This question is fully considered in the case of Lett v. 
 St. L. & O. Ry., 4 where all the English authorities 
 were reviewed, especially in the learned and elaborate 
 judgment of Patterson, J., and the conclusion reached 
 that the death of a wife and mother is such a material 
 loss as entitled the husband and the children living at 
 home to a substantial recovery in damages. In B. & 
 O. It. K. v. State to use of Mahone, 5 where adult chil- 
 
 1 The Penna. Co. ». Lilly, 73 Ind. 252 ; E., K. I. & St. L. Ey. v. Delaney, 82 
 HI. 198. 
 
 2 P. E. E. v. Adams, 55 Penna. St. 499; N. P. E. E. v. Kirk, 90 Id. 15; P. 
 E. E. fl.Kellar, 67 Id. 300. 
 
 3 Chant v. S. E. Ey., Weekly Notes (English) for 1866, p. 134; Wilkins v. 
 Day, 12 Q. B. D. 110; Lett v. St. L. & O. Ey., 11 Ont. Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. 
 E. E. Cas. 105; P. E. E. v. Goodman, 62 Penna. St. 329 ; Mclntyre v. N. Y. 
 
 E. P.., 37 X. Y. 287 ; Woodward v. C. & N. W. Ey., 23 Wise. 400 ; cf, Dick- 
 ins v. N. Y. C. E. E., 23 N. Y. 158. 
 
 * 11 Ont. Ap. 1, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 165. 
 6 63 Md. 135, 21 Am. & Eng. E. E. Cas. 202.
 
 foe wife's death. 491 
 
 dren sued for damages for the death of their mother, it 
 was held that the plaintiffs could only recover for the 
 loss of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit 
 from the continuance of her life, and that those of the 
 children who lived apart from her, and who derived no 
 pecuniary benefit from her, could not be compensated 
 in damages, while, on the other hand, a married 
 daughter, with whom she lived, and in whose household 
 she performed domestic services, was entitled to be 
 compensated for her death. 
 
 406. Where a widow, or children, sue for the death 
 of their husband, or father, they can recover for the 
 loss of any reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit 
 from the death of the husband or father. 1 Obviously 
 the loss suffered by the widow, or children, in the death 
 of the husband, or father, is that amount which the 
 deceased would probably have earned by his intellectual, ■ 
 or bodily labour, in his profession, or business, during 
 the residue of his life, and which would have gone for 
 the benefit of his children, or widow, taking into con- 
 sideration his age, ability, and disposition to labour, 
 and his habits of living and expenditure. 2 Where a 
 widow sues for damages for the death of her husband, 
 her recovery is not barred by the fact that at the time 
 of his death she was, by agreement, separate. 1 from him. 8 
 407. Where the statute which creates the right of 
 recovery permits the suit to be brought for the benefit 
 of the next of kin (other than parents, husband, wife, or 
 children), they can recover damages base. I upoo an 
 
 » Armsworth v. S. E. By., 11 Jar. 758; Gillard v. L. & Y. By., 12 L. T. 866; 
 Blake v. M. C. By., 18 Q. B. 93, 83 E C. L. ; P. B. B.«. Vandiver, 86 Penna. 
 St. 298; P. E. E. v. Henderson, 61 II. 315; C. B. B.». knn trong,52 td 
 II. & B. T. E. E. v. Decker, 84 Id. 4 1 9. 
 
 2 P. R. E. w.Bntler, 59 Penna. Si 335; B.&0. R R. < Weightman, 29 
 Gratt. 431 ; C. R. R. ». Roach, 64 Ga. 635, B Am. & Eng. B. B. I fat 7'.' ; B. & 
 O. Ry. v. State, 41 Md. 268. 
 
 s D. & W. E. R. v. Spicker, Gl Tex. 427, 21 Am & Eng. B B Gas. 1' <>.
 
 492 DAMAGES 
 
 estimate of their reasonable expectation of pecuniary 
 benefit from the continuance of the life of the deceased. 1 
 
 408. Where personal representatives sue for the 
 benefit of the decedent's estate, they can recover for 
 what would be the probable amount of the accumula- 
 tions of their decedent during what would probably 
 have been his lifetime. 2 
 
 409. A bastard is not a child within the meaning of 
 the statutes authorizing a recovery of damages in case 
 of death. 3 
 
 410. The ground of a recovery of damages in an 
 action for the death of any one, being the pecuniary 
 loss to those for whose benefit the action is instituted, 
 it is obvious that the personal sufferings of the deceased 
 are not an element of damage ; 4 nor can the plaintiff's 
 disbursements, or legal liability, incurred for the nurs- 
 ing of, and medical attendance upon, the deceased be 
 taken into consideration in estimating the plaintiff's 
 damages, for the cause of injury was the death. 5 
 
 411. It is clearly settled that no damages can be re- 
 covered by way of compensation for any merely senti- 
 mental loss, or by way of solatium for the sorrow and 
 grief which the death has caused to the surviving mem- 
 bers of the family of the deceased ; thus, in Blake v. Mid- 
 land Ry., 6 the plaintiff having brought suit under the 
 statute as administratrix of her husband, Park, B., di- 
 rected the jury that beyond the pecuniary injury they 
 might giveher compensation for thebereavement she had 
 
 1 Scheffler v. M. & St. L. Ry., 32 Minn. 125, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 173. 
 
 2 P. R. R. v. McCloskey, 23 Penna. St. 526. 
 
 3 Dickinson v. N. E. Ry., 2 H. & C. 735 ; Gibson v. M. Ry.. 2 Ont. (Can.) 
 658. 
 
 4 P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 318 ; Durkee v. C. P. R. R., 56 Cal. 388 ; 
 contra., N. & C R. R. v. Stevens, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 12. 
 
 * P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 318 ; P. R. R. v. Bantora, 54 Id. 495 ; C. & 
 P. R. R. v. Rowan, 66 Id. 393. 
 6 18Q. B. 03, 83 E. C. L.
 
 FUNERAL EXPENSES. 40 3 
 
 sustained, but a rule for a new trial upon the ground 
 of misdirection was made absolute, the court holding 
 that the statute gives compensation only for the pecun- 
 iary loss ; * nor are the mental sufferings of those for 
 whose benefit the action is brought, elements of damage. 2 
 
 The damages in England do not include funeral expenses, etc., but in 
 the United States disbursements for that purpose are generally per- 
 mitted to be included. 
 
 412. It is settled in England, that the funeral ex- 
 penses of the deceased, and the cost of the mourning 
 dress provided for those for whose benefit the action is 
 brought, are not elements of damage. The ground of 
 that conclusion is thus stated by Willes, J., in Dalton 
 v. S. E. Ry. : 3 "the subject-matter of the statute is 
 compensation for injury by reason of the relative not 
 being alive ; and there is no language in the statute re- 
 ferring to the cost of the ceremonial of respect paid to 
 the memory of the deceased in his funeral, or in putting 
 on mourning for his loss." The same view is taken in 
 Boulter v. Webster. 4 On the other hand, in the Ameri- 
 can courts, it is universally held that funeral expenses 
 are, in such cases, recoverable as damages. 5 I am not 
 aware of any American case in which the question has 
 been raised, as to the right to recover the cost of pro- 
 
 1 P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna. St. 318 ; Caldwell v. Brown, 53 Id. 453 ; Donal- 
 son v. M. & M. R. R, 18 la. 280 ; I. C R. R. v. Weldon, 62 111. 290. 
 
 * Blake v. M. Ry., 18 Q. B. 93, 83 E. C. L. ; P. R. R. v. Vandiver, 86 Penna. 
 St. 298; The State v. B. & O. R. R, 24 Md. 84; K. P. Ry. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 
 442, 20 Am. Ry. Rep. 245; N. & C. R. E. v. Stevens, Beiak. (Tenn.) 12; 
 Collir,9 1-. E. T. V. & G. R. R., Id. 841 ; B. & I >. R. R. '■ State to ose of Ma- 
 hone, G3 Md. 135, 21 Am & Eng. R. R. Cas. 202; eontra, B. -V O. R. R. ft 
 Noell, 32 Gratt. 394. 
 
 » 4 C. B. N. S. 306, 93 E. CL. 4 1 3 W. B, 289. 
 
 5 P. R. R. v. Zebe, 33 Penna, St. 818; P. B. R- v. Pont..,,,, :, I 1. 1 195 ; 0. A 
 P. R. E. v. Rowan, 66 Id. 393; Owen i>. Brockamidt, 5 1 Mo. 285 ; Mnrphy v. 
 N. Y. C. & H. R. E. R-, 88 N. Y. 445, 8 An & Eng. R. R. Caa. 490; Rain 
 t.St. L., f M. &. S. Ry., 71 Mo. 164, 6 Am. & Eng. B. R. Caa. 61ft
 
 494 DAMAGES 
 
 viding mourning for the family, but I cannot see why 
 the same rule of decision should not be applied with 
 regard to that as with regard to the expenses of the in- 
 terment of the deceased, for funeral ceremonies, and the 
 clothing of the family in black, are alike conventional 
 expressions of respect for the deceased, and of sorrow 
 for his loss, and neither can be said to be done in the 
 performance of a duty imposed by law. 
 
 In the United States no deduction is to be made in respect of insurance 
 on the life of the person killed, but a different rule prevails in Eng- 
 land. 
 
 413. In Hicks v. N. A. & H. Ky., 1 Campbell, C. J., 
 directed the jury that in estimating damages for death 
 they should deduct the amount of a policy recovered 
 from an accident insurance company, and that they 
 should also deduct the sums that the decedent or his 
 family would probably have paid as premiums, had he 
 lived, upon a policy of general life insurance, which he 
 had in force at the time of his death. This case was 
 cited with approval in Bradburn v. G. "W. Ry. 2 On 
 the other hand, it has been held in America that no 
 deduction is to be made in respect of policies of general 
 life insurance. 3 
 
 VI. STATUTORY LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES. 
 
 414. Damages recoverable in case of death are limi- 
 ted by statute, in the hereinafter-mentioned States, to 
 the following amounts: Colorado, $5,000; Connecticut, 
 $5,000; Illinois, $5,000; Indiana, $5,000; Kansas, 
 $10,000; Maine, $5,000; Massachusetts, $5,000 ; Min- 
 nesota, $5,000; Missouri, $5,000; Nebraska, $5,000; 
 
 1 4 B. & 8. 403, note, 116 E. C. L. 2 L. B. 10 Ex. 1. 
 
 8 X. P. R. R. v. Kirk, 90 Penna. St. 15 ; Kellogg v. N. Y. C. & II. R. R. R., 
 79 N. Y. 72.
 
 STATUTORY LIMITATIONS. . 495 
 
 New Hampshire, $5,000 ; New York, $5,000 ; Ohio, 
 $10,000; Oregon, $5,000; Utah, $10,000; West Vir- 
 ginia, $5,000 ; Wisconsin, $5,000. 
 
 415. The Pennsylvania Act of 4 April, 18G8, having 
 limited recovery as against railways to $3,000 in cases 
 of personal injury not resulting in death, and to $5,000 
 in case of death, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1873 
 prohibited any statutory limitation in either class of 
 cases. In C. R. R. v. Cook, 1 the Act of 1868 was held 
 to be unconstitutional, so far as it limited the damages 
 recoverable in cases not resulting in death, for the 
 reason that the right of recovering such damages being 
 of common law, and not of statutory origin, could not, 
 without violation of the Bill of Rights, be taken away 
 or impaired by statute. This doctrine was reasserted 
 in 13th & 15th St. P. Ry. v. Boudrou ; 2 but in C. & P. 
 R. R. v. Rowan, 3 which was decided before the adoption 
 of the Constitution of 1873, it was held that the right 
 of recovering damages for death being of statutory 
 origin, could be impaired or altogether taken away by 
 subsequent statutes, and in P. R. R. v. Lang-don, 1 de- 
 cided after the adoption of the Constitution of 1873, it 
 was held that the limiting Act of 1868 was unaffected 
 by that instrument, so far as regards a railway, which, 
 by its formal acceptance of the Act of 1868, had made 
 that Act a part of its charter, and thereby excepted 
 itself from the operation of the Constitution of is?::. In 
 P. &R. R. v. Boyer, 5 Gordon, J., intimated that a differ- 
 ent conclusion would be reached in a case where the 
 railway defendant had not formally accepted the Act 
 of 1868. In Lewis est al, Receivers of the ?.& R. R. R. 
 v. Hollahan, 8 it was held thai the Becond Bection of the 
 
 1 1 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 819. ' 92 Penna, 81 175. 
 
 3 66 Id. 393. * 92 Penna, Bt 21. ' 97 Penna. St 108. 
 
 « 103 Penna. St. 425.
 
 496 DAMAGES. 
 
 Act of 4 April, 1868, has been repealed so far as 
 regards the limitation of recovery against a railway, 
 which had not, prior to the adoption of the Constitution 
 of 1873, accepted that statute, and thereby made it a 
 part of its charter, Sterrett, J., saying, in delivering the 
 judgment of the court: "the case of P. R. R. vi Lang- 
 don, cited and relied on by plaintiff in error, was well 
 decided on other controlling questions, but we do not 
 see our way clear to follow it as authority on the pre- 
 cise constitutional question involved in this case. One 
 of the questions in that case was as to the effect of 
 acceptance by the company of the Act of 1868. In 
 this case that question does not arise." In the later 
 case of P., W. & B. R. R. v. Conway, 1 wherein the 
 record failed to show that the railway had accepted the 
 Act of 1868, Paxson, J., says, in his judgment : " it may 
 not be out of place here to correct a misapprehension 
 of the learned judge below in regard to P. R. R. v. 
 Langdon, supra. That case has not been overruled as 
 he supposes. Some of the reasoning by which it was 
 supported is not sustained by the later case of Lewis v. 
 Hollahan, and as my brethren are wiser than myself, I 
 cheerfully submit to their views. Moreover, if, when 
 the main question comes up again, P. R. R. v. Langdon 
 shall be found to be a mistake, it will afford me pleasure 
 to join in overruling it. But the question has not been 
 here since, until the attempt to raise it in the present 
 case. It is, therefore, premature to assume that P. R. 
 R. v. Langdon has been overruled. This court has not 
 yet said that the new Constitution, ipso facto, repealed 
 charters." 
 
 416. Where suit is brought in New York upon a 
 contract of carriage made in that State, and the breach 
 
 1 17 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna.) 429.
 
 STATUTORY LIMITATIONS. 497 
 
 resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff was in 
 Pennsylvania, the statute of the latter State, limiting 
 the amount of damages recoverable, will not be enforced 
 in New York. 1 
 
 1 Dyke v. E. E. B., 45 N. Y. 113. 
 
 32
 
 498 RELEASES. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 EELEASES. 
 
 I. The railway's contractual exemption from liability as a carrier. 
 II. Eeleases by the plaintiff, or the person injured. 
 
 I. THE RAILWAY'S CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION FROM 
 LIABILITY AS A CARRIER. 
 
 In certain jurisdictio?is the law, from considerations of public policy, 
 forbids railways, as carriers of passengers, to contract for, exemption 
 from responsibility for the results of their negligence. 
 
 417. In certain jurisdictions, the law, from considera- 
 tions of public policy, forbids railways, as carriers of 
 passengers, to contract for exemption from responsi- 
 bility for the results of their own negligence, or that of 
 their agents or servants. In 1832, Mr. Justice Story, 
 in his commentaries on the Law of Bailments, 1 stated, 
 as the result of the cases up to that time with regard to 
 the right of a common carrier of goods on land to limit 
 his responsibility, that "Lord Coke declared it, in a 
 note to Southcote's case, 2 and that it was admitted in 
 Morse v. Slue. 3 It is now fully recognized and settled 
 beyond any reasonable doubt," 4 and he added : "still, 
 however, it is to be understood that common carriers 
 cannot, by any special agreement, exempt themselves 
 from all responsibility, so as to evade altogether the 
 salutary policy of the common law. They cannot, 
 therefore, by special notice, exempt themselves from 
 
 1 Sec. 549. 2 4 Rep. 84. 3 1 Ventr. 238. 
 
 * Nicholson v. Willan, 5 East 507 ; Batson v. Donovan, 4 B. & Aid. 39 ; 
 Riley v. Home, h Eingh. 217 ; Lowes v. Kermode, 8 Taunt. 146 ; Austin v. M 
 S. & L. Ry., 10 C. B. 473, 70 E. C L.
 
 CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION. 499 
 
 responsibility in cases of gross negligence and fraud, 
 or, by demanding an exorbitant price, compel the owner 
 of the goods to yield to unjust and oppressive limita- 
 tions and qualifications of his rights." In Peek v. N. 
 S. Ry., 1 Blackburn, J., admits the correctness of Judge 
 Story's conclusions, from the decisions up to the date 
 of the publication of bis book, saying, " in my opinion 
 the weight of authority was, in 1832, in favour of this 
 view of the law, but the cases decided in our courts 
 between 1832 and 1854, established that this was not 
 law, and that a carrier might, by a special notice, make 
 a contract limiting his responsibility, even in the cases 
 here mentioned of gross negligence, misconduct, or 
 fraud on the part of his servants, and, as it seems to 
 me, the reason why the legislature intervened in the 
 Railway and Canal Act (1854), was because it thought 
 that the companies took advantage of these decisions 
 (in Story's language) 'to evade altogether the salutary 
 policy of the common law.'" Lord Blackburn refers 
 to cases which abundantly sustain this view. Under 
 the Railway and Canal Act, 1854, 2 it is for the court to 
 determine whether the conditions imposed by the car- 
 rier, limiting his liability for the transportation of 
 goods, be or be not just and reasonable, but no statute 
 having thrown a similar protection over contracts for 
 passenger carriage, the law in England as to them is, 
 that the parties are free to make their own contracts, 
 and that the railway may stipulate l''->r exemption from 
 liability for all injuries to a passenger, whether caused 
 by the negligence of its servants or otherwise; thus, in 
 McCawley v. The F. Railway, 3 it was held on demurrer, 
 that a plaintiff travelling under a free pass, which, in 
 terms, stipulated that the "plaintiff should 'travel al his 
 own risk," cannot recover for injuries caused by the 
 
 MOH. L. 473. " 17 & 18 Vict. c. 81. *L.B JQ.B.57.
 
 500 RELEASES. 
 
 railway's "gross and wilful negligence." In Hall v."N. 
 E. By., 1 the plaintiff, who travelled under a drover's 
 ticket issued by the N. B. By., for a journey from An- 
 gerton to Newcastle, the line of the N. B. By. termina- 
 ting at Morpeth, where the line of the defendant com- 
 pany began, the ticket stipulating the plaintiff should 
 travel at his own risk, and the plaintiff having been 
 injured between Morpeth and Newcastle on the defend- 
 ant's line, owing to the negligence of the defendant's 
 servants, it was held that the ticket bound the plaintiff 
 to travel at his own risk during the whole of the jour- 
 ney, and that the defendant was protected upon its 
 line as effectually as the N. B. By. was protected upon 
 its line. In Gallin v. L. & N. W. By., 2 the plaintiff 
 travelled on the defendant's line as a drover with cat- 
 tle, under a pass stipulating that he should travel at his 
 own risk, and the train arrived at its terminus after 
 dark, and the plaintiff's car was stopped on a bridge 
 with a low and dangerous parapet, the plaintiff, in 
 alighting, fell over the parapet and was injured, and it 
 was held that the terms under which the plaintiff trav- 
 elled exempted the railway from liability to him, not 
 only during the actual transit, but also while he was 
 leaving the railway premises. In Burke v. S. E. By., 3 
 the plaintiff bought from the railway a book of coupons 
 entitling him to travel between London and Paris. On 
 the second page of this book there was printed a con- 
 dition limiting the railway's responsibility to its own 
 trains, and the plaintiff having been injured in a 
 French train, the railway rested its defence on the con- 
 dition. It was held that the whole book was the con- 
 tract accepted by the plaintiff, and that he could not 
 reject the condition exempting the railway from liability. 
 
 1 L. R. 10 Q, B. 437. 2 L. R. 10 Q. B. 212. 
 
 '5C.P.D. 1.
 
 CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION. 501 
 
 Henderson v. Stevens, 1 was distinguished on the ground 
 that in that case the contract was printed on the front 
 of the ticket, and the notice limiting the defendant's 
 liability was printed on the back of the ticket, and was 
 not proved to have been brought to the attention of the 
 plaintiff. 2 
 
 418. The weight of American authority, however, is 
 decidedly in favour of the proposition, that, while a 
 carrier of goods may by contract, or even by notice 
 brought home to the shipper of goods, limit his lia- 
 bility, yet he cannot by stipulation exempt himself 
 from responsibility for his own negligence or that of 
 his servants. 3 In the United States the same rule is 
 generally enforced in cases of contracts for the carriage 
 of passengers, whether the passengers be carried by 
 the railway, for the ordinary and legally established 
 rate of fare, or for a lower rate of fare, or even without 
 the payment of any fare. 4 The English rule is followed 
 
 1 L. K. 3 H. L. Sc. & Div. 470. 
 
 2 See, also, Duff v. G. N. Ry., 4 Law Rep. Ireland 178. 
 
 3 Beckman v. Shause, 5 Rawle 179; Laing v. Colder, 8 Penna. St. 479; At- 
 wood v. Reliance Transportation Co., 9 Watts 87 ; C. & A. R. R. v. Baldauf, 
 16 Penna. St. 67; Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. it S. 495 j Amer. Express Co. v. 
 Second National Bank of Titusville, 69 Penna. St. 394; Empire Trans. Co. v. 
 Wamsutta Oil Co., 63 Id. 14; Farnham v. C. & A. R. R., 55 Id. 62; N. J. S. 
 Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344; Dorr v. N. J. 8. Nay. Co., 1 Bandf. 
 S. C. 136; Stoddard v. L. I. Ry., 5 Id. 180; Davidson a Graham, 2 Ohio St 
 131; Graham v. Davis, 4 Id. 362; Welsh v. P., C. & St. L. By, 10 Id. 75; 
 Knowlton v. Erie Ry., Id. 260; Fillibrowne v. < r. T. By., 55 Me. 462 ; Sagei v. 
 Portsmouth. 31 Id. 228 ; School District v. B., II. & E. B. B., 102 Mass. 552; 
 I., P. & C. R. R v. Allen, 31 Ind. 394; Berry i». Cooper. 28 I la. 5 IS ; Staid v. 
 Townsend, 'M Ala, 247; S. Ex. Co. v. Crook, U Id. 468; B. Ex. Co. a Moon, 
 39 Miss. 822; N. O. M. Ins. Co. r. X. < >., J. & Gr. N. B. K.. 20 La. in 
 York v. Central B.R.,3 Wall L13; Walker v. Transportation Co., Id. 160; 
 Express Co. v. Knntzc, 8 Wall. 342. 
 
 4 N. Y. C. R. R. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 867 ; Gr. T. By. v. Bterena, 96 D. B. 
 655; P. R. R. v. McCloskey, 23 Penna. St. 526; P. B B. v. ITend* pmh, 51 Id. 
 315; L. &B. R. R v. Chenewith, 52 Id. 382; P. B. B a BaUer, 67 Id. 886; 
 B., P. & W. R. R. v. O'llara, L2 Weekly Notes of Cases (Penna I 178; Graham 
 v. P. R. R., 66 Mo. 530; Jacobus r. St. P. & C. B. B., 20 Minn. 126; I. B. K.
 
 502 EELEASES. 
 
 in Canada, 1 and in Ireland, 2 and also in New York. 3 
 The case of Smith v. N. Y. C. R. R, 4 where the railway 
 is held liable, is only distinguishable from the latter cases 
 upon the ground that in that case the contract of ex- 
 emption was general in its terms, and did not specify as 
 a ground of exemption the negligence of the defendant 
 or its servant, but in effect Smith's case must be held 
 to be overruled as an expression of the law in New 
 York by the later cases in that State. There are also 
 some other cases in which the English and New York 
 cases are followed. 5 
 
 419. Where the passenger is to be carried also over 
 a connecting line, the limitation of liability made by 
 contract with the original carrier, when available to 
 protect the contracting line, avails also to protect the 
 connecting line. 6 A contract in terms exempting a 
 railway from responsibility for "damage" or "risks" 
 to the passenger will not be so construed as to relieve 
 the railway from liability for the results of negligence 
 
 v. Monday, 21 Ind. 48 ; Arnold v. I. C. E. E., 83 111. 273 ; I. C. E. E. v. Bead, 
 37 Id. 484; Warren v. F. E E., 8 Allen 227 ; C, P. & A. E. E. v. Curran, 19 
 Ohio St. 1 ; Eose v. D. M. V. E. E., 39 Iowa 246 ; M. & O. By- v. Hopkins, 41 
 Ala. N. S. 486. 
 
 1 Sutherland v. G. W. Ey., 7 Up. Can. (C. P.) 409 ; Alexander v. N. Ey., 33 
 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 474, 35 Id. 453. 
 
 2 Johnson v. G. W. & S. Ey., 9 Irish Eep. C. L. 108. 
 
 3 Wells v. N.Y. C. E. E., 24 N. Y. 181 ; Perkins v. N. Y. C. E. E., Id. 196; 
 Bissell v. Same, 25 Id. 442 ; Poucher v. Same, 49 Id. 263 ; Cragin v. Same, 51 
 Id. 64 ; Stinson v. Paine, 32 Id. 333 ; Blair v. E. Ey., 66 Id. 313. 
 
 * 24 N. Y. 222. 
 
 6 Ashmore v. Penna. Trans. Co., 28 N. J. L. 180 ; Kinney v. C E. E., 32 Id. 
 407 ; Hall v. N. J. S. N. Co., 15 Conn. 539 ; Beck v. Weeks, 34 Id. 145 ; Law- 
 rence v. N. Y. & N. H. E. E., 36 Id. 63 ; Kimball v. E. & B. E. E., 26 Vt. 
 247; Mann v. Preacher, 40 Id 332; Adams Ex. Co. v. Haynes, 42 111.89; 
 Adams Ex. Co. v. Brooks, Id. 458; Illinois E. E. v. Adams, Id. 474; Haw- 
 kins v. G. W. E. E., 17 Mich. 57, 18 Id. 427 ; B. & O. E. K. v. Bregy, 32 Md. 
 333 ; Brehme v. Adams Ex. Co., 25 Id. 328 ; Levering v. Union Trans. Co., 42 
 Mo. 88. 
 
 6 Hall v. N. E. Ey., L. E. 10 Q. B. 437.
 
 CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION. 503 
 
 on its part. 1 In order to relieve the railway from lia- 
 bility for the results of its negligence, the contract for 
 its exemption must have been made with or accepted 
 by the person injured; thus, where a mail agent was 
 killed while travelling in charge of mails under a con- 
 tract between the railway and the government, it was 
 held that a condition of exemption in the pass given tc 
 and used by the agent was inoperative, because the 
 agent's right to free and safe transportation was absolute 
 under the contract between the railway and the govern- 
 ment. 2 It has been held in Illinois that a railway, 
 which runs a sufficient number of passenger trains for 
 the accommodation of the public, being under no legal 
 obligation to carry passengers on its freight trains, may 
 contract for a limitation of liability in cases of pas- 
 sengers so carried, provided that equal terms are held 
 out to all offering themselves to be so carried. 3 Where 
 a passenger is carried for a valuable consideration, his 
 use of a pass containing conditions exemjiting the rail- 
 way from liability for negligence will not estop him from 
 proving that he was not subject to those conditions. 4 
 
 420. While it mast be admitted that, as a general 
 rule, parties to contracts may, as they please, assume 
 obligations or limit their rights, yet it may well be con- 
 tended, in the light of public policy and with a just, 
 appreciation of the character and magnitude of railway 
 operations, that railways ought not to be permitted in 
 all cases to contract for exemption from the Legal con- 
 sequences of their negligence. In G. T. Ry. v. Stevens, 8 
 Bradley, J., pertinently says: "it is often asked with 
 
 l N. J. S. N. Co.v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Bow. 844; Smith v. \. V . C, B. k, 
 24N.Y. 22-J; SI. & O. Ry. v. Bopkins, 11 Ala. 
 ■N.Y., L. E. & W. R. R. r. Seybolt, 95 N. Y. 562. 
 » Arnold v. I. C. R. R., 83 III. 273. 
 * G. T. Ry. v. Stevens, 95 U. S. 655. ' 98 I '■ S. 6G0.
 
 504 RELEASES. 
 
 apparent confidence, may not men make their own con- 
 tracts ? or, in other words, may not a man do what he 
 will with his own ?" The question at first sight seems 
 a simple one, hut there is a question lying behind that. 
 "Can a man call that absolutely his own which he holds 
 as a great public trust, by the public grant, and for the 
 public use as well as for his own profit ?" Railways 
 do not deal with the public at arm's length, nor upon 
 equal terms. The exigencies of business and the con- 
 ditions of modern life compel individuals to avail them- 
 selves of the facilities which railways offer, and to accept 
 the terms which railways dictate. Therefore, that which 
 is in legal form a contract between the railway and its 
 customer is possibly the result of coercion rather than 
 of agreement, and, for that reason, should be looked 
 upon with suspicion, if its effect be to release the rail- 
 way from usual and reasonable obligations. The law 
 exacts damages for breaches of contract and other vio- 
 lations of duty chiefly in order to compensate, in so far 
 as possibly can be, the injured party for the wrong that 
 has been done to him ; and no one can doubt that 
 public policy demands not only that every wrong should 
 be legally redressed at the cost of the wrongdoer, but 
 also that that redress should so inevitably and so 
 promptly follow upon the commission of the wrong, 
 that the certainty of its exaction will be an ever-present 
 warning not to do a like wrong. It is also to be remem- 
 bered that inasmuch as railways are common and public, 
 and not private or special, carriers, any one act of neg- 
 ligence, which is the cause of injury to one passenger 
 or forwarder of goods, may at the same time be the 
 cause of the like or greater injury to other customers 
 of the railway. It is, therefore, to the benefit of the 
 public that all proprietors, managers, and servants of 
 railways should realize that every act of negligence on
 
 CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION. 505 
 
 the part of the railway will, of necessity and without 
 exception, render the railway responsible in damages 
 to the party injured thereby, if that party be himself 
 without fault. This line of argument is forcibly stated 
 by Bradley, J., in his judgment in N. Y. C. E. It. v. 
 Lockwood. 1 Therefore, when a railway, in the exercise 
 of its charter powers, receives a passenger for trans- 
 portation upon payment of its ordinary and legally 
 established rate of fare, or for any consideration, pecu- 
 niary or otherwise, which it accepts as the equivalent 
 of that fare, it may well be contended that considera- 
 tions of public policy forbid the railway to enter into a 
 contract with that passenger which shall have the effect 
 of relieving the railway from responsibility for the con- 
 sequences of its negligence. But these considerations 
 do not apply to a case where the railway offers to the 
 passenger a free choice between the alternatives of, on 
 the one hand, transportation at the ordinary and legally 
 established rate of fare, with liability upon the part of 
 the railway to indemnify him against the consequences 
 of its negligence, and, on the other hand, transportation 
 at a lower rate of fare, or without any charge, upon 
 condition that the railway be exempted from liability 
 for its negligence. If, under such circumstances, the 
 passenger voluntarily accepts the last-mentioned alter- 
 native, considerations of public policy obviously do not 
 forbid the railway to avail itself of that exemption from 
 liability, whose insertion as a condition of the contract 
 was, either partly or wholly, the consideration for the 
 transportation of the passenger for less than the ordi- 
 nary rate of fare. This view was clearly put in Kenney 
 v. C. R. R. of N. J., 2 where the railway was held not 
 to be liable to one who was killed by its oegligence 
 
 1 17 Wall. 357. ■ 34 N. J. L. 513.
 
 506 RELEASES. 
 
 while being carried as a passenger under a free pass, 
 which in terms exempted the railway from liability for 
 the results of its negligence. Van Syckcl, J., thus 
 stated the grounds of the judgment : " the deceased did 
 not choose to bargain with them in their general em- 
 ployment, in which they hold themselves ready to 
 transport passengers for hire, but asked and accepted 
 from them a gratuity. To hold otherwise would be to 
 say that a man, from the mere fact that his occupation 
 is that of a common carrier, cannot, as to an individual 
 transaction, be a gratuitous bailee. The company, there- 
 fore, in asking immunity against loss in this case, does 
 not seek to escape fram any part of its common-law' 
 liability. The objection that this contract is inconsis- 
 tent with, good morals and sound policy has been con- 
 sidered in all the cases of this kind which have been 
 submitted to judicial criticism. It differs widely from 
 the question, whether a person should be allowed to 
 stipulate against loss from his own negligence. Reasons 
 of great cogency could be stated against the validity of 
 such a contract, which can have no pertinency to this 
 issue. The doctrine of respondeat superior has not been 
 adopted, because there is any equity in imposing the 
 loss upon the superior, but in order to induce the prin- 
 cipal to use greater care in the selection, and to exercise 
 increased watchfulness over the acts and conduct of his 
 agents. While it may with great force be urged that 
 the policy which dictates this rule would be infringed 
 by permitting a railroad company, in the pursuit of its 
 ordinary business, to contract for immunity from such 
 loss, it is difficult to perceive how this consideration can 
 apply to a transaction without their ordinary employ- 
 ment, to a mere gratuity or accommodation, which con- 
 cerns none but the immediate parties to it. Why should 
 the passenger who solicits a free pass be permitted to
 
 CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION. 507 
 
 escape the liability to loss, which he voluntarily assumes 
 in order to secure the accommodation? It is certainly 
 a breach of good faith in the passenger to attempt to fix 
 the carrier with responsibility in such case. * * * The 
 damage in this case resulted from the fault, not of the 
 directors of the company, but from that of its subor- 
 dinate agents, and no satisfactory reason has been given 
 why the contract, which the parties themselves made, 
 should be restrained of its full operation." 
 
 421. Of course, where a real freedom of choice be- 
 tween the alternatives is not offered to the passenger, 
 the condition of exemption ought not to protect the rail- 
 .way. This view is supported by the case of N. Y. C. 
 R. R. v. Lock wood, supra, where the plaintiff, having 
 shipped cattle under a contract providing for the trans- 
 portation of his cattle at less than tariff rates, and bind- 
 ing him to attend to the loading and transportation and 
 unloading of the cattle, and to take all risk of injury to 
 them, and of personal injury to himself or to whomso- 
 ever travelled with the cattle, and having received a 
 pass certifying that he had shipped sufficient stock to 
 pass free, but binding him to waive all claims for dam- 
 ages or injuries, was injured by the negligence of the 
 railway's servants, it being proven at the trial thai the 
 tariff rates were about three times the ordinary rates 
 charged, and that the usage of business was for all 
 drovers to ship cattle under agreements similar to that 
 made by the plaintiff, judgment upon a verdict for the 
 plaintiff was affirmed in error.
 
 508 RELEASES. 
 
 II. RELEASES BY THE PLAINTIFF, OR THE PERSON 
 INJURED. 
 
 Subject to the qualifications stated, either the person injured or the 
 plaintiff may release his right of action either before or after the 
 injury. 
 
 422. Either the plaintiff, or the person injured, may- 
 bind himself and his privies by his release of the cause 
 of action if made upon an adequate consideration, and 
 with a full knowledge of its legal effect. But a release 
 will not bind the person injured which he was induced 
 to sign by false representations made by an officer of 
 the railway that his injuries were slight, and that if 
 they should ultimately become serious he would, not- 
 withstanding the release, be in a position to obtain fur- 
 ther compensation from the railway. 1 So, a release may 
 be set aside by proof that at the time it was executed, 
 the party releasing his claim was insane, and, if be sub- 
 sequently became sane, did not ratify it. 2 Whether or 
 not a release of a claim for damages has been obtained 
 through fraud is a question for the jury, and the burden 
 of proving the fraud is on the plaintiff,- 3 but in order to 
 warrant the submission of the issue on that point to the 
 jury, the evidence of the fraud must be clear and in- 
 dubitable. 4 A refusal upon the part of a passenger who 
 has been injured to pay his fare, and an assent thereto 
 upon the part of the carrier, does not amount to a settle- 
 ment of the passenger's claim for damages for the in- 
 jury, nor estop the passenger from asserting and enforc- 
 
 1 Hirschfeld v. L. B. & S. C. Ry., 2Q.B.D.1. 
 
 3 George v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. R., 34 Ark. 613, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 
 294; Dixon v. B. C. & N. R. R., 100 N. Y. 170. 
 
 s Hawes v. B., C. R. & N. R. R., 64 Iowa 315, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 220; 
 C.,R.I. & P. Ry. v. Lewis, 109 111. 120, 19 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 224; Bus- 
 sian v. M., L. S. & W. Ry., 56 Wise. 325, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 716. 
 
 * P. R. R. v. Shay, 82 Penna. St. 198.
 
 RELEASE BY PRE-CONTRACT. 509 
 
 ing such, a claim. 1 It has been held that where a pas- 
 senger has sued his carrier and also the owner of a col- 
 liding carriage his release or discharge of the carrier 
 will bar his action against the other defendant. 2 
 
 423. A release by the person injured will bind those 
 who, after his death, sue for the damages caused to them 
 by his death ; thus, in Read v. G. E. Ry., 3 a widow 
 having brought suit under Lord Campbell's Act the de- 
 fendant pleaded that in the lifetime of the decedent 
 "the defendants paid him, and he accepted, a sum of 
 money in full satisfaction and discharge of all the claims 
 and causes of action he had against the defendants," and 
 on demurrer judgment was entered for the defendant, 
 Lush, J., saying: "the intention of the statute is, not 
 to make the wrongdoer pay damages twice for the same 
 wrongful act, but to enable the representatives of the 
 person injured to recover in a case where the maxim 
 actio personalis morltur cum persona would have applied. 
 It only points to a case where the party injured has not 
 recovered compensation against the wrongdoer. It is 
 true that s. 2 provides a different mode of assessing the 
 damages, but that does not give afresh cause of action." 
 424. A person may also bind himself and his privies 
 before receiving any injury by his stipulation that, if 
 injured, he will not claim damages; thus, in Griffith /•. 
 The Earl of Dudley, 4 the widow of a workman suing 
 under the Employer's Liability Act, 1880, for damages 
 caused to her by the death of her husband was held to 
 be barred by his contract with his employer, made upon 
 a valuable consideration for himself and his representa- 
 tives and any person entitled, in case of his death, oot 
 to claim any compensation under the Act for personal 
 
 » M. Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. 528. 
 
 * Burton v. Price, 57 Cal. 272. 
 
 •L.B.3Q.B.555. •9Q.B.D.857.
 
 510 EELEASES. 
 
 injury whether resulting in death or not. 1 On the 
 other hand, in K. P. Ky. v. Peavey, 2 the facts were 
 that the Kansas statute 3 subjected the railway to liability 
 to its servants for injuries caused by the negligence of 
 their fellow-servants, that after the passage of that Act 
 the plaintiff entered into the service of the railway, and 
 signed a written release stipulating that in consideration 
 of the wages to be paid to him he would not hold the 
 railway liable in damages for injuries caused to him, 
 inter alia, by the negligence of his fellow-servants, and 
 that the plaintiff was injured by such negligence; and 
 the court held the release void because against public 
 policy, and entered judgment against the railway. 
 Horton, C. J., thus states the ground of decision: "the 
 State has such an interest in the lives and limbs of its 
 citizens that it has the power to enact statutes for their 
 protection, and the provisions of such statutes are not 
 to be evaded or waived by contracts in contravention 
 therewith. The general principle deduced from the 
 authorities is that an individual shall not be assisted by 
 the law in enforcing a contract founded upon a breach 
 or violation on his part of its principles or enactments; 
 and this principle is applicable to legislative enactments, 
 and is uniformly true in regard to all statutes made to 
 carry out measures of general policy, and the rule holds 
 equally good if there be no express provision in the 
 statute peremptorily declaring all contracts in violation 
 of its provisions void." The fallacy in this line of 
 reasoning is obvious ; the relation between the railway 
 and its servants is purely voluntary and contractual ; 
 the servant is not compelled to enter the service of the 
 
 1 See also W. & A. R. R. v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465 ; Galloway v. W. & A. R. R., 
 57 Id. 512 ; W. & A. R. R. v. Strong, 52 Id. 461 ; Hendricks v. W. & A. R. R. 
 Id. 467. 
 
 2 29 Kans. 169. 11 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 260. 
 
 3 Ch. 93, Laws of 1874.
 
 RELEASE BY PRE-COXTRACT. 511 
 
 railway, and the conditions of his service are the result 
 not of coercion, but of compact, and the railway is, 
 therefore, as much entitled to insist upon a release of 
 damages by pre-contract, as it is entitled to insist that 
 the servant's pay shall be two, three, or five dollars a 
 day, instead of twenty, thirty, or fifty dollars a day. 
 There is, in principle, an obvious distinction between 
 the relation which the railway holds to its servants and 
 that which it holds to persons not contractually con- 
 nected with it, and even to passengers who deal with it 
 on the basis of its quasi-public status.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 The references are to the pages. 
 
 ABUTMENT. 
 
 Injury from falling over, 150. 
 
 Liability of railway to servants for injuries caused by dan- 
 gerous proximity of, to line, 307. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in case of falling of brick from, 
 441. 
 ACCIDENT, INEVITABLE. 
 
 See Inevitable Accident. 
 ACCIDENTAL INSURANCE. 
 See Insurance. 
 
 ACT OF GOD. 
 
 Definition of, 29. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for injuries caused solely by, 29. 
 Illustrations of, 32. 
 Recurrence of, 32. 
 
 Liability of railway where negligence on its part has con- 
 curred with, in causing the injury, 34. 
 
 Illustrations of negligence of railway concurring with, 34 
 
 ACTION. 
 
 See Assumpsit, Case, Trespass. 
 Form of, 385. 
 
 Distinction between contract and tort only formal in th< 
 but of practical importance, 386. 
 When the remedy is in equity, 3 
 
 ACTS AND OMISSIONS. 
 
 See Commission ok OMISSION, ' ►MISSION. 
 Liability of railway for acta dependent upon the relation 
 between the railway and the actor, the scope of bis authority, 
 
 and the character of the act, 97. 
 33
 
 514 INDEX. 
 
 ADMINISTRATORS. 
 
 See Personal Representatives. 
 
 ADMISSIONS. 
 
 See Declarations. 
 
 AGENCY. 
 
 Relation of, between railway and wrongdoer fixes liability of 
 railway for wrongful act, 38. 
 
 Distinction in legal effect between special and general, 98. 
 
 AGENTS. 
 
 See Agency. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, 75. 
 ALTERATIONS. 
 
 See Changes in Construction. 
 
 ASSAULT. 
 
 Liability of railway for, 111, 112. 
 ASSUMPSIT. 
 
 When the action of lies, 390. 
 
 Damages in, 394. 
 ATTENDANTS OF PASSENGERS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to, 219. 
 AUXILIARY LINES. 
 
 See Connecting Lines. 
 BACKING TRAINS. 
 
 Care to be observed in, 1G6. 
 
 BASTARD. 
 
 Cannot recover damages for parent's death, 492. 
 BOARDING AND LEAVING TRAINS. 
 
 Liability of the railway for injuries incurred in, 16, 264. 
 Contributory negligence in, 62. 
 
 BOILERS. 
 
 See Engines. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in case of explosion of, 439. 
 
 BRAKES. 
 
 Duty of the railway to travellers on highways as to, 167 
 Duty of the railway as to brakes of cars stored on siding, 
 178. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers as to, 240. 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 307. 
 
 BRIDGES. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to, with regard to passengers, 240.
 
 INDEX. 515 
 
 BRIDGES— Continued. 
 
 With regard to servants, 305. 
 
 Non-liability for destruction of bridge by act of God, 32. 
 
 Or by public enemy, 35. 
 
 Duty of the railway to travellers on the highway as to rail- 
 way bridges over highways, 149. 
 
 Duty of the railway to travellers on the highway as to high- 
 way bridges over the line, 149. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants as to bridges over the line, 302. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in case of fall of, 440. 
 
 BRIDGE ABUTMENT. 
 
 See Abutment. 
 BRIDGE GIRDER. 
 
 See Girder. 
 BRIDGE-GUARDS. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 30(3. 
 BUILDINGS. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passers on the highway, as to. 148. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers, as to its, 240. 
 
 Duty of the railway to licensees, as to its, 177. 
 
 Duty of the railway to trespassers, as to its, 190. 
 
 Duty of the railway to servants, as to its, 305. 
 
 Nou-liability for destruction of, by act of God, 32. 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. 
 
 General doctrine concerning, 433. 
 
 Of negligence, 433. 
 
 Of contributory negligence, 438. 
 
 CANCER. 
 
 Liability of railway for, following railway accident, 28. 
 
 CARPENTERS. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 3G0, 3G8. 
 CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS. 
 Liability of railways as, 200. 
 Negligence of, attributed to passengers, 78. 
 
 CARS. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers with regard l<> its, 240. 
 
 With regard to cars received from other lin< - for transpor- 
 tation, 238. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants, with regard t<>, 307. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants, with regard to can received 
 from other lines for transportation, -JiM.
 
 516 INDEX. 
 
 CASE, ACTION ON THE. 
 
 Where it lies, 390. 
 
 Damages iu, 394. 
 CATTLE-CHUTES. 
 
 See Chutes. 
 CAUSE, PROXIMATE AND REMOTE. 
 
 See Proximate and Remote Cause. 
 
 CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of made subsequently to injury, 421. 
 
 CHILDREN. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, 6Q. 
 
 Contributory negligence of parents, etc., as attributed to, 90. 
 Negligence, to be graduated by capacity, QQ. 
 Turn-table cases, 184. 
 For jury to determine capacity of, 70. 
 Not so as to, more than fourteen years of age, 70. 
 Railway owes higher measure of duty to, 71. 
 Fact of infancy will not supply want of proof of negligence 
 by railway, 72. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries to minor servants, 338. 
 Damages recoverable by parent for injury to, 481. 
 For death of, 487. 
 
 CHUTES. 
 
 Liability of railway to servants for location of, in dangerous 
 proximity to line, 308. 
 CLASSIFICATION. 
 
 Of tho.se for whose acts railways are liable, 98. 
 
 Of those to whom railways are liable, 143. 
 
 Of those to whom railways are liable to the same extent as 
 to passengers, 143, 199. 
 
 Of fellow-servants, 365. 
 
 COAL-CHUTES. 
 See Chutes. 
 
 COLLATERAL OCCURRENCE. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of, 420. 
 
 COLLISION. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in case of, 439, 442, 443. 
 
 COMMISSION OR OMISSION. 
 
 Liability of the railway, as afleeted by the character of the 
 act as one of, 37, 96.
 
 INDEX. 517 
 
 COMMON EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 See Fellow-servants. 
 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. 
 Defined. 59. 
 
 The rule of, in Illinois, 59. 
 The rule of, in Georgia and Tennessee, 60. 
 Not a reasonable doctrine, 60. 
 
 CONDUCTORS OF TRAINS. 
 
 Not vice-principals, 324. 
 As fellow-servants, 367, 369. 
 
 CONNECTING LINES. 
 
 Liability of railways for the negligence of, 137. 
 
 Liability of railways for the negligence of other railways 
 exercising statutory running powers, 140. 
 
 Liability of railways for the negligence of other railways 
 exercising contractual running powers, 141. 
 
 CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 See Proximate and Remote Cause. 
 
 CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE. 
 
 Liability of railway to, when personally assisting in the 
 reception or delivery of their freight, 223. 
 Non-liability to volunteer assisting, 224. 
 Contributory negligence of, 224. 
 
 CONTRACT. 
 
 See Action. 
 
 Liability of railway to person using line, etc., under spe- 
 cial, 225. 
 
 Damages for breaches of, 459. 
 
 CONTRACTOR. 
 
 See Independent Contractor. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
 In general, 45. 
 
 The reason of the rule of, 47. 
 Defined, 48. 
 
 Essentials of proof of, 48, 
 
 In avoiding dangers, or obviating inconveniences, 62. 
 Doubts as to the applicability of doctrine of, to paasengeii, 48. 
 Of persons deprived oftbi ir b >ns ss, 66. 
 Neither moral quality nor motive of act relevant if oneof 
 contributory negligence, 50.
 
 518 INDEX. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE— Continued. 
 
 Opportunity of knowledge equivalent to knowledge for pur- 
 poses of, 50. 
 
 Of infants, 66. 
 
 Belief of contributorily negligent person not relevant, 50. 
 
 No defence in case of wilful injury, 50. 
 
 Railway liable if injury could have been avoided notwith- 
 standing negligence of person injured, or of plaintiff, 51. 
 
 Rule in Davis v. Matin explained, 55. 
 
 Comparative negligence, 59. 
 
 In not performing collateral statutory duty, 64. 
 
 Sunday travelling, 65. 
 
 Generally for jury to determine capacity of infants, etc., 69. 
 
 Not so, in cases of infants more than fourteen years of 
 age, 70. 
 
 Railway owes higher duty to infants, etc., than to adults of 
 average capacity, 71. 
 
 Fact of infancy, or other incapacity, will not supply want of 
 proof of negligence by the railway, 72. 
 
 Of drunkards, 74. 
 
 Knowledge of injured person's incapacity necessary to fix 
 railway with liability, where it would not be liable to person of 
 average capacity, 75. 
 
 Plaintiffs contributory negligence a bar when suing for in- 
 juries to another's person, 75. 
 
 Of parents, when suing for injuries to child, 76. 
 
 Of poor parents, 77. 
 
 Attributed, 78. 
 
 Attribution of carrier's negligence to passenger, 78. 
 
 Of passers, on highway near the line, 154. 
 
 Of passers, on highway at grade crossings, 168. 
 
 When contributory negligence at grade crossings is to be 
 decided by the court, and when by the jury, 168, 170. 
 
 Duty of increased care, wdien the crossing is specially dan- 
 gerous, 171. 
 
 Excuses for carelessness, 172. 
 
 Of trespassers, 183,192. 
 
 Of consignors and consignees, 224. 
 
 Of passengers, 259. 
 
 Of servants, 373. 
 
 Presumption of contributory negligence, 443. 
 
 A question of fact, 447.
 
 INDEX. 519 
 
 CONTRACTORS. 
 
 See Independent Contractor. 
 CONTRACTING PARTY. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, as attributed to the person on 
 whose behalf the contract was made, 88. 
 
 COUPLINGS. 
 
 Railway not bound to servants to have uniform couplings, 
 302. 
 
 Servants take ordinary risks of, 346. 
 
 COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. 
 
 See Scope of Employment. # 
 
 COURT AND JURY. 
 
 Provinces of, as to negligence and contributory negligence, 
 448. 
 
 As to damages, 468. 
 
 CROSSINGS. 
 
 Liability of railway for failure to maintain, in repair, 155. 
 
 Duty of the railway in the operation of its line at, 157, 166. 
 
 Reciprocal rights and obligations of the railway and of 
 passers on the highway at, 158. 
 
 At grade objectionable, 157. 
 
 Speed of trains at, 159. 
 
 Statutory signals at, 160. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to giving notice of approach of train 
 to, 162. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to flagman at, 163. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to gates at, 163. 
 
 Failure of the railway to perform self-imposed duty at, when 
 negligence, 164. 
 
 Increased duty of the railway when specially dangerous, 165. 
 
 Duty of the railway to its passengers with regard to COE- 
 struction and maintenance of, 240. 
 
 CROWD. 
 
 See Mob. 
 
 CULVERTS. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 805. 
 
 CYCLONE. 
 
 Non-liability of railway because train is Mown Brain track 
 
 by, 32. 
 
 Or station building is prostrated by, 32.
 
 520 INDEX. 
 
 DAMAGES. 
 
 For breach of contract of carriage, 459. 
 
 For illness following such breach, 466. 
 
 For torts, 468. 
 
 The old rule, 468. 
 
 The modern rule, 468. 
 
 Provinces of judge and jury as to, 468. 
 
 Duty of the judge as to, 468. 
 
 Duty of the jury as to, 469. 
 
 Excessive, 470. 
 
 Inadequate, 470. 
 
 Not generally subject to review in appellate tribunal, 470. 
 
 Exemplary, 471. 
 
 In case of injuries not causing death, 472. 
 
 Not to be diminished by receipt from accidental insurance 
 policy, 474, 494. 
 
 Duty of person injured to exercise care in his surgical treat- 
 ment after injury, 480. 
 
 Measure of, in suit for personal injuries, 473. 
 
 In suit by husband for injuries to wife, 480. 
 
 In suit by parent or master for injuries to child or servant, 
 481. 
 
 In suit for death, 482. 
 
 Pecuniary loss, 486. 
 
 Damages recoverable by parent for child's death, 487. 
 
 By husband and children suing for death of wife and 
 mother, 490. 
 
 By widow and children suing for death of husband and 
 father, 491. 
 
 By next of kin, 491. 
 
 By personal representatives, 492. 
 
 Bastard cannot recover as a child, 492. 
 
 Personal sufferings of deceased not elements of damage, 492. 
 
 Do not include solatium, 492. 
 
 Funeral expenses, etc., when recoverable as, 493. 
 
 Life insurance, 494. 
 
 Statutory limitations of, 494. 
 
 DANGERS. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries incurred in avoiding, 14. 
 Contributory negligence in avoiding, 62. 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 No right of action in tort for, at common law, 397.
 
 IXDEX. 521 
 
 DEATH— Continued. 
 
 Right of action for, caused by breach of contract, 399. 
 Statutes authorizing recovery of damages for, 402. 
 Contributory negligence of the dead person attributable to 
 those who sue for damages for his death, 87. 
 
 DECLARATIONS. 
 
 Admissibility of, by agents or servants of the railway, 415. 
 
 By the plaintiff, or the person injured, 417, 418. 
 DEFECTIVE CARS. 
 
 See Cars. 
 DEFENDANT. 
 
 Who may be, 412. 
 DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 See Negligence. 
 DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 See Negligence. 
 DEPOT. 
 
 See Station. 
 DERAILMENT. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in case of, 439. 
 DERRICK. 
 
 Injuries caused by, 151, 152. 
 
 Duties to servants with regard to, 306. 
 DOORS OF CARS. 
 
 Injuries incurred in closing, 15. 
 DRAWING-ROOM CARS. 
 
 See Sleeping-Cars. 
 DRIVER OF CARRIAGE. 
 
 Negligence of, imputable to person driven, 78. 
 
 DROVERS' PASSES. 
 
 Liability of railway, 204. 
 Effect of limitations in, 505. 
 
 DRUNKARDS. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, 7 I. 
 
 Liability of railway Cut- retention <>f' intemperate servant*, 
 
 314. 
 
 DUTY. 
 
 General, of tin- railway, .'!. 
 To passengers, etc., 231. 
 To servants, 295.
 
 522 INDEX. 
 
 DUTY— Continued. 
 
 To licensees, 176. 
 
 To trespassers, 182. 
 
 To persons lawfully on highways at grade crossings, 162. 
 
 Higher measure of, to children, etc., 71. 
 
 Of the judge at nisi prius, 448, 468. 
 
 EMBANKMENTS. 
 
 Duty of railway to passengers in construction and mainte- 
 nance of, 240. 
 
 Not liable for destruction of, caused by act of God, 32. 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 305. 
 Presumption of negligence in case of breaking down of, 440. 
 
 EMPLOYE. 
 
 See Servant. 
 ENEMY, PUBLIC. 
 
 See Public Enemy. 
 
 ENGINES. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 306. 
 
 ENGINE-DRIVERS. 
 
 Not vice-principals, 323, 327. 
 As fellow-servants, 366, 369. 
 Contributorv negligence of, 374. 
 ENGINEERS. 
 
 See Engine-drivers. 
 
 ENGINEER'S STAKE. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries caused by falling over, on 
 highway, 151. 
 
 EQUITY. 
 
 When the remedy of the person injured is in, 385. 
 
 ESCORTS OF PASSENGERS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to, 219. 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 In actions against railways for negligence, 415. 
 Burden of proof of negligence, 433. 
 Of contributory negligence, 435. 
 Presumption of negligence, 438. 
 Presumption of contributory negligence, 443. 
 Minor presumptions, 444. 
 
 Admissibility of declarations by agents. and servants of the 
 railway, 415.
 
 INDEX. 523 
 
 EVIDENCE— Continued. 
 
 Admissibility of declarations by the plaiutiff or the person 
 injured, 417, 418. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of collateral occurrences, 420. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of changes in construction or mode of 
 operation of the line, 421. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of attempted subornation of perjury, 
 423. 
 
 Inspection of injuries, 424. 
 
 As to speed of trains, 424. 
 
 As to signals, 426. 
 
 Admissibility of life tables, 431. 
 
 Non-admissibility of evidence as to poverty of person injured, 
 etc., 432. 
 EXCESSIVE DAMAGES, 469. 
 
 EXECUTORS. 
 
 See Personal Representatives. 
 
 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, 471. 
 
 EXEMPTION. 
 
 The railway's contractual, from liability for negligence, 498. 
 
 EXPLOSION. 
 
 See Boilers. 
 EXPRESS COMPANIES' AGENTS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to, 216. 
 
 Non-liability of the railway to persons accompanying, at 
 their invitation, 217. 
 
 FARE. 
 
 Payment of, in money, not essential to make one a pas- i 
 
 204. 
 
 Effect of payment of, by other than passenger, 205. 
 
 FELLOW-SERVANTS. 
 
 Implied undertaking by, to bear the risks of each Others' 
 
 negligence, 350. 
 
 The doctrine of a common employment, 356. 
 The test of a common employment, 363. 
 Classification of fellow-fiervants, 366. 
 Who are, 365. 
 Who are not, 369. 
 Test as to, 363. 
 
 FIGHT. 
 
 See Mob.
 
 524 INDEX. 
 
 FIREMEN. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 366, 369. 
 Risks of injury taken by, 347. 
 
 FLAGMEN AT CROSSINGS. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to, 163. 
 
 FLOODS. 
 
 Railway not liable for, when caused by act of God, 32. 
 
 FLYING SWITCH. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries from, 166. 
 
 FOG SIGNAL. 
 
 See Torpedo. 
 
 FOREMEN. 
 
 Not vice principals, 323. 
 
 FREE PASSENGERS. 
 
 Liability of railway to, 207. 
 
 FRIGHT. 
 
 Of persons, as excusing contributory negligence, 62. 
 Of horses — 
 
 By cars at rest, 151, 152, 153. 
 
 By derricks, 152. 
 
 By whistling of engines, 152, 153. 
 
 By escape of steam, 152, 153. 
 
 By falling of coals from elevated railway, 152. 
 
 By passing of train over a bridge, 152. 
 
 FROST. 
 
 Non-liability of railway for breaking of rail by, 32. 
 
 FUNERAL EXPENSES. 
 
 When recoverable as damages for death, 493. 
 
 GATES AT CROSSINGS. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to the maintenauce of, 163, 164. 
 
 GIRDER. 
 
 Railway not liable for falling of, on car, 38. 
 
 " GROSS NEGLIGENCE." 
 See Negligence. 
 
 GUARDIANS. 
 
 See Parents. 
 
 GUARDS. 
 
 See Train-hands.
 
 index. 525 
 
 HAND-CARS. 
 
 Duty of servants with regard to, 307. 
 HERNIA. 
 
 Liability of railway for, 28. 
 HIGHWAYS. 
 
 Liability of railway for obstructions of, 23, 151. 
 Duty of the railway as to repair of, on which line is laid, 150. 
 Duty of the railway as to repairing, at crossings, 155. 
 Liability of railway for negligent construction of crossing 
 of, 156. 
 
 Right of passers on, on which line is laid to cross at any 
 point, 157. 
 HORSE-CARS. 
 
 See Street Cars. 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
 
 Contributory negligence of husband when suing for injuries 
 to person of wife, 75. 
 
 Of husband when attributed to wife, 87. 
 Damages recoverable in suit : 
 
 By husband for injuries to wife, 481. 
 By husband for death of wife, 490. 
 By wife for husband's death, 491. 
 ICE AND SNOW. 
 
 Railway liable for neglect to remove, from stations, 25 [, 
 Street railway liable for neglect to remove from car plat- 
 forms, etc., 275. 
 
 Injuries caused by, 151. 
 
 ILLNESS. 
 
 Following breach of contract of carriage, when dan 
 recoverable for, 4C6. 
 IMPLEMENTS. 
 
 S.;e Tools. 
 IMPROVEMENTS IN MACHINERY AND OPERATION. 
 
 Duty of the railway os to the adoption of, 2 1 1. 
 i XA DEQUATE DAMAGES, 470. 
 
 INCONVENIENCES. 
 
 Liability of the railway for injuries incurred in avoiding, 1 -. 
 
 Contributory negligence in avoiding, 62. 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 
 
 The old rule as to the liability of the employer lor tie 
 ligence of, 119.
 
 01b INDEX. 
 
 I N DEPENDENT CONTRACTORS— Continued. 
 
 The modern rule, 122. 
 
 Liability where the railway has reserved control both of re- 
 sult and means, 123. 
 
 Eftvct of the reservation of a more limited control, 125. 
 
 Liability of the railway for a wrongful act done in execu- 
 tion of the contract, 126. 
 
 Liability for the contractor's non-performance of a duty in- 
 cumbent on the railway, 127. 
 
 The railway's duty as to the anticipation of negligence on 
 the part of the contractor, 129. 
 INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS. 
 
 Definition of, 35. 
 
 Non-liabilty of railways for, 35 
 INFANTS. 
 
 See Children. 
 INJURIES. 
 
 See Inspection of Injuries. 
 
 Not causing death, measure of damages in, 472. 
 
 Causing death, measure of damages in, 482 
 
 INSANE PERSONS. 
 
 Measure of duty of railway to, 71. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, 66. 
 INSPECTION. 
 
 Duty of as to passengers, 238. 
 
 Duty of, as to servants, 303. 
 INSPECTION OF INJURIES. 
 
 Power of court to order, 424. 
 INSPECTORS OF REPAIRS. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 330, 335, 367, 369. 
 INSURANCE. 
 
 No right of action by company whose assured is killed by 
 negligence of railway, 399. 
 
 Damages as affected by receipts from policies of, 474, 494. 
 INTERFERENCE OF THIRD PARTY. 
 
 Will not relieve railway from responsibility for the conse- 
 quences of its negligence, 39. 
 
 Not attributed to plaintiff, or to person injured, as contribu- 
 tory negligence, 95. 
 
 INTOXICATION. 
 
 See Drunkards.
 
 IXDEX. 527 
 
 INVITATION. 
 
 Liability of railway for servant's act in inviting person in- 
 jured to occupy a position of danger, 155, 164, 180, 286. 
 JOINDER. 
 
 Of common law and statutory claims, 395. 
 JOINT TORT FEASORS. 
 
 Liability of, 413. 
 
 JUDGE. 
 
 The duty of at nisi priiis, 447, 468. 
 JURY, PROVINCE OF. 
 
 See Court and Jury. 
 LABOURERS. 
 
 Risks of injury impliedly undertaken by, 347. 
 As fellow-servants, 367, 370. 
 
 LAW. 
 
 See Action. 
 
 When the remedy of the person injured is at law, and when 
 in equity, 385. 
 LAWS OF NATURE. 
 
 Conclusive presumption as to accuracy and certainty of, 446. 
 
 LESSEE RAILWAYS. 
 
 See Lessor Railways. 
 LESSOR RAILWAYS. 
 
 Liability of, for the negligence of lessee railways, 182. 
 
 LICENSEE. 
 
 Duty of the railway to, 176. 
 
 Non-liability of the railway to, for failure to maintain 
 buildings, etc., in repair, 177. 
 
 Liability to, for negligent operation of line, 178. 
 
 LIFE TABLES. 
 
 Admissibility in evidence of, 431. 
 
 LIGHT. 
 
 Duty of railway to light engines and can approaching a 
 
 crossiug at night, 167. 
 
 Duty of railway to adequately light ita stations, etc., 
 
 318. 
 
 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
 
 By contract, 498. 
 
 LINE. 
 
 Duty of the railway to its passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 
 To its servants, with regard to, ■
 
 528 INDEX. 
 
 LOCOMOTIVES. 
 
 Duty of the railway to its passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 
 LOGS. 
 
 Injuries by, thrown on station platforms, 255. 
 
 LOOK AND LISTEN. 
 
 The duty to, on the part of a person approaching a grade 
 crossing, 168. 
 
 LUNATICS. 
 
 See Insane Persons. 
 
 MAIL-BAGS. 
 
 Injuries by, thrown on station platforms, 255. 
 
 MAIL-CARRIERS. 
 
 See Post-office Employes. 
 
 MAIL-CATCHER. 
 
 Railway liable to servants for construction of, in dangerous 
 proximity to line, 308. 
 
 MAN-TRAPS. 
 
 See Traps. 
 
 MANUFACTURER. 
 
 Railway liable for negligence of, in construction of rolling 
 stock, 237. 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN. 
 
 See Husband and "Wife. 
 
 MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 See Servant. 
 
 Contributory negligence of master, when suing for injuries 
 to servant, 76. 
 
 Contributory negligence of servant in charge of property, 
 attributed to master suing for injury to that property, 87. 
 
 MASTER, LIABILITY FOR SERVANT. 
 
 See Servant. 
 
 MINORS. 
 
 See Children. 
 
 MOB. 
 
 Railway not liable for injuries done by, 39. 
 
 MORTGAGE TRUSTEES. 
 
 Liability of railways for the negligence of, 134.
 
 INDEX. 529 
 
 MOURNING. 
 
 When disbursements for, recoverable as damages for death. 
 493. 
 
 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. 
 See Ordinances. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 The test of liability, 1. 
 
 Comparative. See Comparative Negligence. 
 
 Contributory. See Contributory Negligence. 
 
 Defined, 5. 
 
 Degrees of, not material, 7. 
 
 Evidence of, 415. 
 
 Burden of proof of, 433. 
 
 Presumption of, 438. 
 
 A question of fact, 447. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE. 
 
 See Comparative Negligence. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY. 
 
 See Contributory Negligence. 
 
 NEWSBOYS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to, 216. 
 
 NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. 
 
 The general principle determining the liability of railways 
 to those with whom there is no contractual relation, 145. 
 OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS. 
 
 Liability of railways for, 23, 151. 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS ON LINE. 
 
 Non-liability of railway for act of stranger, 38. 
 
 OMISSIONS. 
 
 See Commission or Omission. 
 
 Omissions of duty render railway liable without regard to 
 the relation of the actor to the railway, 97. 
 OPERATION OF THE LINE. 
 
 Liability of railway Co passers on highways for n 
 
 in its, 151. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers in, 27 L 
 
 To servants in, 316. 
 
 ORDINANCES. 
 
 Non-performance of duty imposed by, ai oegligi m 
 
 34
 
 530 INDEX. 
 
 OSTLER. 
 
 Risk of injury impliedly undertaken by in railway stables, 
 349. 
 PALACE CARS. 
 
 See Sleeping-Cars. 
 PARENT AND CHILD. 
 
 Negligence of parents when suing for injuries to child, 76. 
 
 Contributory negligence of poor parents, 77. 
 
 Contributory negligence of parent as attributed to child, 90. 
 
 PARTIES. 
 
 Plaintiff, 411. 
 
 Defendant, 412. 
 PASS, FREE. 
 
 See Free Passenger. 
 PASSENGER. 
 
 The general principle determining the liability of railways 
 to its, 200. 
 
 Definition of, 204. 
 
 Payment of fare in money not essential, 204. 
 
 Liability of railway to free passengers, 207. 
 
 Liability of railway to trespassers on cars, 208. 
 
 Liability of railway to persons attempting to defraud the 
 railway of their fare, 209. 
 
 Implied authority of servants to accept persons for transpor- 
 tation as passengers on passenger trains, 209. 
 
 On freight trains, 209. 
 
 On pay cars, 210. 
 
 On hand cars, 210. 
 
 Servants as passengers, 210. 
 
 Passengers as servants, 212. 
 
 When the relation of carrier and passenger begins, 212. 
 
 Liability of the railway to passenger temporarily absent 
 from the means of conveyance, 214. 
 
 When the relation of carrier and passenger ends, 215. 
 
 Liability of the railway to post-office employes, 215. 
 
 To soldiers carried under contract with the Government, 216. 
 
 To express agents, 216. 
 
 To vendors of newspapers, refreshments, etc., 216. 
 
 To passengers of another railway, whose cars are run over 
 their line, 217. 
 
 To passengers of another railway with whom a station is 
 jointly occupied, 217.
 
 IXDEX. 531 
 
 PASSENGER— Continued. 
 
 To passengers of another railway at a level crossing of the 
 lines, 218. 
 
 To passengers of another railway received for transportation 
 in its cars, 218. 
 
 To attendants of passengers, 219. 
 
 To servants of other lines, 220. 
 
 Liability of railways to consignors or consignees personally 
 assisting in the reception or delivery of their freight, 223. 
 
 Non-liability to volunteer assisting consignors or consignees, 
 224. 
 
 Contributory negligence of consignors and consignees, 224. 
 
 Liability to persons using the line or stations under special 
 contract, 225. 
 
 The Penna. act of 1868, 225. 
 
 Constitutionality of the act, 226. 
 
 Purview of, 227. 
 
 Cases under 228. 
 
 General duty of the railway to passengers, etc., 231. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to passengers in freight trains, 292. 
 
 Railway not liable for injuries caused solely by act of God, 
 29. 
 
 Or by inevitable accident, 35. 
 
 Or from such defects in machinery, etc., as could not have 
 been detected by exercise of due care, 233. 
 
 Duty of care in construction and maintenance of line in 
 rolling stock, 235. 
 
 Duty of inspection, 238. 
 
 Duty as to cars received from other lines, 238. 
 
 Duty as to roadway, 240. 
 
 Duty as to rails, 240. 
 
 Duty as to ties, 240. 
 
 Duty as to bridges, 2 10. 
 
 Duty as to embankments, 240. 
 
 Duty as to level crossings, 240. 
 
 Duty as to switches, 240. 
 
 Duty as to rolling stuck, 240. 
 
 Duty as to cars, 240. 
 
 Duty as to car-axles, 210. 
 
 Duty as to car-brakes, 2 10. 
 
 Duty as to car-wheels, 240. 
 
 Duty as to locomotives, 2 10.
 
 532 INDEX. 
 
 PASSENGER— Continued. 
 
 Duty us to means of transportation controlled by other par- 
 ties, 240. 
 
 Duty as to sleeping-cars, etc., 242. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to the adoption of improved appli- 
 ances and methods of operation, 244. 
 
 Regulations as affecting passengers, 250. 
 
 Station approaches, buildings, and platforms, 253. 
 
 Duty of railway to give reasonable notice of starting of 
 train, 260. 
 
 Effect of calling name of station before train stops, 261. 
 
 Duty of railway to stop its trains at way-stations a reason- 
 ably sufficient time for the safe ingress and egress of passen- 
 gers, 263. 
 
 Injuries incurred in boarding and leaving moving trains, 
 22, 263. 
 
 Injuries incurred in descending from cars at rest, 266. 
 
 Duty of the railway in the operation of its line, 274. 
 
 Speed of train when negligent as to passengers, 276. 
 
 Liability of railway for negligent closing of door, etc., by 
 servant, 277. 
 
 Injuries incurred in closing doors, etc., 279. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries caused by disorderly pas- 
 sengers, 280. 
 
 Injuries caused by sudden jolts, 282. 
 
 Contributory negligence of passengers, 282. 
 
 Crossing the line, 283. 
 
 Moving from car to car, 283. 
 
 Riding on the platform, 283. 
 
 Exposing head or arm out of window, 284. 
 
 Riding in baggage-car, 286. 
 
 Not necessarily negligent to ride on platform of street- 
 car, 290. 
 
 Increased duty of railway to disabled passenger, 291. 
 
 Injuries aggravated by impaired physical condition of the 
 injured person, 292. 
 
 Contributory negligence of carrier, as attributed to passen- 
 ger, 78. 
 
 Occasional carriers not liable as common carriers, 292. 
 
 May sue either in case or assumpsit, 390. 
 
 Stranger to the contract of carriage cannot recover in either 
 form of action, 391. 
 
 Presumption of negligence in cases of injury to, 439, 442.
 
 INDEX. 533 
 
 PAYMENT INTO COURT. 
 Effect of, 395. 
 
 PERJURY. 
 
 Admissibility of proof of attempted subornation of, 423. 
 
 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 Measure of damages in action by, for death, 492. 
 Right of action for breach of contract followed by death, 399. 
 No right of action at common law for tort causing death, 397. 
 Statutes vesting right of action for death, 402, 403. 
 
 PILEDRIVER. 
 
 Injury for explosion of, 179. 
 
 PITS. 
 
 Injuries from falling into, 178, 183. 
 
 PLAINTIFFS. 
 
 Who may be, 411. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, when suing for injuries to some 
 one else, 75. 
 
 PLANKS AT CROSSING. 
 
 Liability of railway for defective, 157. 
 
 PLATFORMS. 
 
 Non-liability of railway to licensee for instability of station, 
 
 177. 
 
 Duty to passengers with regard to, 254. 
 
 PNEUMONIA. 
 
 Liability of railway for, 28. 
 
 POINTSMAN. 
 
 See Switch-tender. 
 POST-OFFICE EMPLOYES. 
 
 Not servants of railways, 102. 
 
 Non-liability of railway- for acts of, 1"'-'. 
 
 Not passengers, 210, 229. 
 
 Liability of railways to, 215. 
 PREMATURE CONFINEMENT. 
 
 Liability of railway for, 28. 
 PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 Of negligence, 438. 
 
 Of contributory negligence, 4 13. 
 
 As to earn of traveller at grade crossing, 174. 
 
 Minor, 444.
 
 534 INDEX. 
 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE CAUSE. 
 
 Railway's negligence must have been the proximate cause of 
 the injury to the plaintiff, 9. 
 
 Plaintiff's contributory negligence must have been the proxi- 
 mate cause of the injury, 55. 
 
 Tests of, 10, 11. 
 
 Injuries incurred in avoiding dangers as illustrations of, 14. 
 
 Injuries in avoiding inconveniences as illustrations of, 15. 
 
 Injuries in boarding or alighting from trains as illustrations 
 of, 16. 
 
 General illustrations of, 23, 26. 
 
 Subsequently developed injuries as illustrations of, 28. 
 
 Negligence of railway and of fellow-servants as proximate 
 and remote cause of injury to servants, 337. 
 
 PUBLIC ENEMY. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for injuries solely caused by an act 
 of the, 35. 
 
 QUASI-PUBLIC CHARACTER OF RAILWAYS. 
 
 As affecting their liability, 4. 
 
 RAILS. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 
 RECEIVERS. 
 
 Liability of railways for the negligence of, and their ser- 
 vants, 135. 
 
 Liability of, for their own negligence and that of their ser- 
 vants, 135. 
 
 REFRESHMENTS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to vendors of, 216. 
 
 REGULATIONS. 
 
 As affecting passengers, 250. 
 As affecting servants, 316. 
 
 RELEASE. 
 
 Of damages, 508. 
 
 Not binding when induced by false representations, 508. 
 Release by person injured binding as those who sue for 
 damages for his death, 509. 
 By pre-contract, 509. 
 
 REMOTE CAUSE. 
 
 See Proximate and Remote Cause.
 
 index. 535 
 
 ROADS. 
 
 See Highways. 
 
 ROADWAY. 
 
 Duty of the railway to its passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 To its servants, with regard to, 305. 
 
 ROLLING STOCK. 
 
 See Cars. 
 
 Duty of the railway to the passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 
 ROPING CARS. 
 
 Injuries by, 151. 
 
 ROUND-HOUSE. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants, with regard to, 30G. 
 Injuries in, 377. 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS. 
 
 See Regulations. 
 
 RUNNING SWITCH. 
 
 See Flying Switch. 
 
 SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, 104. 
 
 SELF-CAUSED INJURIES. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for, 36. 
 
 SELF-IMPOSED DUTY. 
 
 Failure to perform, when negligence, 164. 
 
 SERVANTS. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, in charge of property attributed 
 to master when suing for injury to that property, 87. 
 
 General nature of master's liability for the acts of, !>!>. 
 
 " Respondeat superior" explained and illustrated, 100. 
 
 Relation of master and servant must in fact exist, 101. 
 
 Post-office employes pot servants, 102. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for acts of volunteers, L03. 
 
 Test of the existence of the relation of master and servant, 103. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for acts of assistants en 
 servants without authority, 103. 
 
 Scope of employment of, L0 1. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for acts of, beyond the sco] 
 th. ir employment, 105. 
 
 If the relation exist, and if* the act be within the scope of 
 employment, not material thai the si rvanl duob ived orders, 1"" 
 
 Liability for servant tn pa < -, lo7.
 
 536 INDEX. 
 
 SERVANTS— Continued. , 
 
 Liability for servant's l-emoval of trespassers, 108. 
 Implied authority of, to remove trespassers, 109. 
 Liability for arrests by, 110. 
 Liability for assaults by, under orders, 111. 
 Non-liability for mistaken exercise of judgment by, in an 
 emergency, 111. 
 
 Liability for wilful acts of, beyond the scope of employment, 
 112. 
 
 Proof of ratification, 113. 
 
 Liability for servant's act in inviting person injured to 
 occupy position of danger, 155, 164, 180, 286. 
 Servants as passengers, 210. 
 Passengers as servants, 212. 
 
 Liability of railway to servants of other lines, 220 
 Definition of the term servant, 294. 
 General duty of masters to, 295. 
 Negligence the test of liability, 298. 
 Non-liability of railway for accidental injuries to, 300. 
 The railway's duty of care in the construction and mainte- 
 nance of appliances of labor, 300, 305. 
 The railway's duty of inspection, 303. 
 
 Liability of railway for location of structures in dangerous 
 proximity to the line, 307. 
 
 Liability of railway for defective condition of cars received 
 from other lines for transportation, 309. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to selection and retention of, 313. 
 Liability of railway for retention of incompetent, 314. 
 Duty of railway as to organization, discipline, and control 
 of, 315. 
 
 Duty of railway to, in the operation of the line, 316. 
 Regulations as affecting, 316. 
 
 Duty of railway to sufficiently man its trains, 317. 
 Speed, when negligent as to, 318. 
 Duty of railway to light its trains, 318. 
 Vice-principals, 320. 
 
 Railway's liability for negligence in construction, mainte- 
 nance, or inspection, without regard to rank of servant to whom 
 the neglected duty has been delegated, 328. 
 
 Negligence of the railway and of fellow-servants as proxi- 
 mate and remote cause, 337. 
 Duty of railway to minor, 338.
 
 index. 537 
 
 SERVANTS— Continued. 
 
 Implied undertaking of, to bear the risks of the service. 342. 
 Risks of injury impliedly undertaken by train hands, 344. 
 
 By firemen or stokers, 347. 
 
 By labourers on the line, 347. 
 
 By -well-diggers, 349. 
 
 By ostler in railway stables, 349. 
 Risks of special service, 349. 
 
 Risks of injury from negligeuce of fellow-servants, 350. 
 The doctrine of a common employment, 356. 
 The test of a common employment, 363. 
 Classification of fellow-servants, 365. 
 Volunteers acting as servants, 370. 
 Termination of relation of master and, 372. 
 Contributory negligence of, 373. 
 Obedience to orders as an excuse for, 381. 
 Effect of complaint and promise to remedy defect, 381. 
 Statutes affecting liability of railways to, 382. 
 
 SICKNESS. 
 
 See Illness. 
 
 SIDINGS. 
 
 Duty of the railway as to storage of cars on, 40. 
 Duty of railway to servants, with regard to, 306. 
 
 SIGNALS. 
 
 At crossings, 160. 
 
 SIGNAL-POSTS. 
 
 Liability of railway to servants for location of, in dan :< roua 
 proximity to line, 308. 
 
 SIGN-BOARDS AT CROSSINGS. 
 Duty of the railway as to, 163. 
 
 SLEEPING-CARS. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers, with regard to, 242. 
 Non-liability of sleeping-car company for unauthorized acl 
 
 of servant of, beyond scope of employment, 106. 
 
 SNOW. 
 
 See Ice and Snow. 
 
 SOLDIERS. 
 
 Liability of the railway to soldiers, carried under contract 
 with the Government, 216.
 
 538 INDEX. 
 
 SPEED OF TRAIN. 
 
 "When negligent as to passengers, 276. 
 As to travellers on highways, 158. 
 As to servants, 318. 
 
 STAKE. 
 
 See Engineer's Stake. 
 
 STATIONS. 
 
 Duty to passengers with regard to construction and mainte- 
 nance of, 253. 
 
 Liability for objects thrown from passing trains, 255. 
 
 For careless handling of luggage, 256. 
 
 For injuries due to projection of cars over platforms, 256. 
 
 Liability to servants for constructions in dangerous prox- 
 imity to line, 308. 
 
 STATION GROUNDS. 
 
 See Stations. 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 See Sunday, Death. 
 
 Non-performance of duty imposed by, as negligence, 40. 
 Disobedience to, as contributory negligence, 64. 
 Affecting liability of railway to servants, 381. 
 The Penna. Act of 1868, 225. 
 Vesting a right of action for death, 402. 
 Such, have no extra-territorial effect, but are enforced in 
 other jurisdictions by comity, 409. 
 
 Joinder of common law and statutory claims, 395. 
 Statutory limitations of damages, 494. 
 
 STEAM. 
 
 Injuries to passers on highway from escape of, 152, 154. 
 
 STEPS. 
 
 Injuries on station, 258. 
 
 Injuries on car, 266, 271. 
 
 No presumption of negligence in such cases, 443. 
 
 STOKERS. 
 
 See Firemen. 
 
 STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN. 
 
 The duty to, on the part of a person approaching a grade 
 crossing, 170. 
 
 STORMS. 
 
 See Act of God, Cyclone.
 
 ixdex. 539 
 
 STRANGERS. 
 
 Non-liability of railways for injuries caused solely by acts 
 of, 38. 
 
 Contributory negligence of, no bar to plaintiff's recovery, 39, 
 95. 
 
 Presence of, in engine cab when negligence on the part of the 
 railway, 167. 
 
 STRAPS IN STREET-CARS. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries incurred by not holding, 64. 
 
 STREETS. 
 
 See Highways. 
 
 STREET CARS. 
 
 Different conditions of travel ou, from that on steam cars, 
 290. 
 
 Not necessarily contributory negligence in passenger to ride 
 or stand on platform of, 57, 291. 
 
 SUBORNATION. 
 See Perjury. 
 
 SUICIDE. 
 
 Railway not liable for death by, following accident, 29. 
 
 SUITS. 
 
 See Action. 
 
 SUNDAY LAWS. 
 
 Disobedience to, as contributory negligence, Go. 
 
 SUPERIOR SERVANT. 
 See Foreman. 
 
 SURGICAL TREATMENT. 
 
 Duty of person injured to excrei.-e rare in, sitter injury, •!*(). 
 
 SWITCHES. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers, with regard l<>, Li 10. 
 Duty of the railway to servants, with regard to, 306. 
 Non-liability of railway for act of stranger in moving 
 
 switches, 38. 
 
 SWITCH-TENDERS. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 366. 
 
 TELEGRAPH POLES. 
 
 Liability of railway to servant.-- for location of, in & 
 proximity to line, 308.
 
 540 INDEX. 
 
 THIRD PARTIES. 
 
 See Strangers. 
 
 Liability of railways for means of transportation under tha 
 immediate control of, 240, 136. 
 
 TIES. 
 
 Duty of the railway to passengers, with regard to, 240. 
 
 TOOLS. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants, with regard to, 307. 
 
 TORPEDO. 
 
 Railway not liable to passenger for explosion of, by act of a 
 stranger, 38. 
 
 Injury to trespasser by explosion of, 189. 
 
 TORT-FEASORS. 
 
 Joint liability of, 413. 
 
 TORTS. 
 
 Damages in actions for, 468. 
 
 TRACK. 
 
 Duty of the railway to its passengers with regard to, 240. 
 Duty of the railway to its servants, with regard to, 305,302. 
 
 TRAIN HANDS. 
 
 Risks of injury impliedly undertaken by, 344. 
 As fellow-servants, 366, 369. 
 Contributory negligence of, 375. 
 
 TRAPS. 
 
 Liability of railways for, adjoining highways, 148. 
 For, within railway premises, 176, 183. 
 
 TRESTLES. 
 
 See Bridges. 
 
 TRESPASS. 
 
 Effect of notice not to, 180 
 
 Liability of railway for servants, 00. 
 
 "When the action of, lies, 386. 
 
 TRESPASSER. 
 
 Liability of the railway to, for the maintenance of unauthor- 
 ized means of injury, 182. 
 
 Injuries to, at turn-tables, 184. 
 Upon cars, 188. 
 On the line, 190.
 
 INDEX. 541 
 
 TRESPASSER— Continued. 
 
 Train hands entitled to assume that trespasser will get out of 
 the way of the train, 192. 
 
 Higher measure of duty with regard to trespasser of known 
 or obvious incapacity, 193. 
 
 No absolute duty to stop train, if infant be seen on line, 19o. 
 
 Sleeping, etc., on line, 196. 
 
 Railway's failure to fence as affecting its liability to, 198. 
 
 TUNNELS. 
 
 Labourers impliedly undertake risks incident to working in, 
 349. 
 
 TURN-TABLES. 
 
 Injuries caused to trespassers by, 184. 
 
 Duty of railway to servants with regard to, 305. 
 
 TURNOUTS. 
 
 See Sidings. 
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 As a defence in actions for negligence, 43. 
 
 VENDORS OF REFRESHMENTS, NEWSPAPERS, ETC. 
 Liability of the railway to, 216. 
 
 VICE-PRINCIPALS. 
 
 Liability of railways to servants for negligence of, 320. 
 
 Who are, 322, 323. 
 
 Foremen are not, 323. 
 
 Conductors are not, 324. 
 
 Engine-drivers are not, 327. 
 
 Executive officers are, 323. 
 
 VOLUNTEERS. 
 
 Non-liability of railway f. >r acts of, 103. 
 Liability of railway to, 370. 
 
 WATCHMEN. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 368. 
 
 WATER TANKS. 
 
 Liability of railway to servants for location of, in dan 
 
 proximity to line, 308. 
 
 WELL-DIGGERS. 
 
 Risks of injury impliedly undertaken by, 3 19.
 
 542 INDEX. 
 
 WHISTLE. 
 
 Duty of engine-driver to use, in approaching grade cross- 
 ing, 102. 
 
 Liability of railway for injuries resulting from fright of 
 horses caused by excessive use of, 151, 105. 
 
 WIFE. 
 
 See Husband and Wife. 
 
 WINDOWS. 
 
 Injuries in cases of arms or heads projected from, 284. 
 No presumption of negligence in such cases, 442. 
 
 YARD HANDS. 
 
 As fellow-servants, 368. 
 
 YARD-MASTERS. 
 
 As iellow-servants, 368.
 
 LAW LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 
 
 LGS -— -*
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 786 498 6